David Gerard wrote:
[Response re: DSM-IV-TR criteria (all identifiers removed,original forwarded to permissions@wikipedia.org):
We are inclined to deny Wikipedia permission to use ourcontent as we do not allow anyone to alter our material and we do not want our material posted online. I can assure you that we have complete rights to our material and Fair Use does not apply to DSM material or any other APA/APPI content.
They want to keep for themselves they right of seling the definitions and the right of chaning them.
I know that copyright apply only to intellectual right, not to facts. I can not proibits people to publish that 14-Carbonuim-14 or 230-Thorium are radioactives.
If they claim that these definitions are covered by copyright rights they are claming that they are ficticious, just like a text of a novel is.
AnyFile
Any File wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
[Response re: DSM-IV-TR criteria (all identifiers removed,original forwarded to permissions@wikipedia.org):
We are inclined to deny Wikipedia permission to use ourcontent as we do not allow anyone to alter our material and we do not want our material posted online. I can assure you that we have complete rights to our material and Fair Use does not apply to DSM material or any other APA/APPI content.
They want to keep for themselves they right of seling the definitions and the right of chaning them.
I know that copyright apply only to intellectual right, not to facts. I can not proibits people to publish that 14-Carbonuim-14 or 230-Thorium are radioactives.
If they claim that these definitions are covered by copyright rights they are claming that they are ficticious, just like a text of a novel is.
Copyrighting a definition that has the purpose of standardising a concept across an industry doesn't make sense. That would force those who are not members of their cabal to define the term differently, and thus effectively defining a different disorder. The resultant ambiguity would seem contrary to public policy in health care.
The copyrightability of definitions is a troubling idea in a broader context. The accuracy of definitions can depend on precise wording. If, with the intent of circumventing copyright infringement we rewrite a definition we may no longer be talking about the same thing.
Ec
On 12/21/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Any File wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
[Response re: DSM-IV-TR criteria (all identifiers removed,original forwarded to permissions@wikipedia.org):
We are inclined to deny Wikipedia permission to use ourcontent as we do not allow anyone to alter our material and we do not want our material posted online. I can assure you that we have complete rights to our material and Fair Use does not apply to DSM material or any other APA/APPI content.
They want to keep for themselves they right of seling the definitions and the right of chaning them.
I know that copyright apply only to intellectual right, not to facts. I can not proibits people to publish that 14-Carbonuim-14 or 230-Thorium are radioactives.
But these aren't hard and fast "facts" of physical science; they're interpretations. Though I don't think it's right, I can see their point in not wanting their content reproduced freely on Wikipedia; they are in the business of selling definitions, and the DSM-IV online from the APPI costs between $300-400 for individuals. For libraries the price is undoubtedly many, many hundreds of dollars more. If we got after it and posted fair use snippets of the majority of the definitions in the work, the APPI would probably lose money, as well as their editorial control.
If they claim that these definitions are covered by copyright rights they are claming that they are ficticious, just like a text of a novel is.
Copyrighting a definition that has the purpose of standardising a concept across an industry doesn't make sense. That would force those who are not members of their cabal to define the term differently, and thus effectively defining a different disorder. The resultant ambiguity would seem contrary to public policy in health care.
I think the idea is probably to make everyone part of their cabal, not to standardize the industry.
-- phoebe / brassratgirl
Phoebe Ayers wrote:
On 12/21/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Any File wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
[Response re: DSM-IV-TR criteria (all identifiers removed, original forwarded to permissions@wikipedia.org):
We are inclined to deny Wikipedia permission to use our content as we do not allow anyone to alter our material and we do not want our material posted online. I can assure you that we have complete rights to our material and Fair Use does not apply to DSM material or any other APA/APPI content.
They want to keep for themselves they right of seling the definitions and the right of chaning them.
I know that copyright apply only to intellectual right, not to facts. I can not proibits people to publish that 14-Carbonuim-14 or 230-Thorium are radioactives.
But these aren't hard and fast "facts" of physical science; they're interpretations.
Definitions are neither facts nor interpretations. They are a priori statements intended to insure that we are all talking about the same thing. They can neither be proven, disproven or observed..
Though I don't think it's right, I can see their point in not wanting their content reproduced freely on Wikipedia; they are in the business of selling definitions, and the DSM-IV online from the APPI costs between $300-400 for individuals. For libraries the price is undoubtedly many, many hundreds of dollars more. If we got after it and posted fair use snippets of the majority of the definitions in the work, the APPI would probably lose money, as well as their editorial control.
It would probably be impractical for us to take anything but the definitions from thes works, but I do note that the quoted comments say "we do not allow anyone to alter our material". The GFDL does allow alterations, but also allows invariable sections. We allow the downstream user to do what he will with the material, with no declaration of invariant sections. Wouldn't it make more sense to have all quotations declared invariant.
If they claim that these definitions are covered by copyright rights they are claming that they are ficticious, just like a text of a novel is.
Copyrighting a definition that has the purpose of standardising a concept across an industry doesn't make sense. That would force those who are not members of their cabal to define the term differently, and thus effectively defining a different disorder. The resultant ambiguity would seem contrary to public policy in health care.
I think the idea is probably to make everyone part of their cabal, not to standardize the industry.
Withoiut standardized definitions for psychiatric disorders you end up with Scientology.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
It would probably be impractical for us to take anything but the definitions from thes works, but I do note that the quoted comments say "we do not allow anyone to alter our material". The GFDL does allow alterations, but also allows invariable sections. We allow the downstream user to do what he will with the material, with no declaration of invariant sections. Wouldn't it make more sense to have all quotations declared invariant.
Can't do it. Invariant Sections are a subset of Secondary Sections under the GFDL: see definitions below. Basically, it's for acknowledgements, legal disclaimers, etc. If, say, the quotations were all in a separate appendix, never in an entry page itself, and were considered not to "fall directly within" "the Document's overall subject" - highly unlikely for any Wikimedia project I can think of - then it could be declared Invariant. However, this would require every downstream user to republish the quotations appendix in full in every derivative work, no matter what it is.
From the GFDL's definitions section: (see [[Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License]])
A "Secondary Section" is a named appendix or a front-matter section of the Document that deals exclusively with the relationship of the publishers or authors of the Document to the Document's overall subject (or to related matters) and contains nothing that could fall directly within that overall subject. (Thus, if the Document is in part a textbook of mathematics, a Secondary Section may not explain any mathematics.) The relationship could be a matter of historical connection with the subject or with related matters, or of legal, commercial, philosophical, ethical or political position regarding them.
The "Invariant Sections" are certain Secondary Sections whose titles are designated, as being those of Invariant Sections, in the notice that says that the Document is released under this License. If a section does not fit the above definition of Secondary then it is not allowed to be designated as Invariant. The Document may contain zero Invariant Sections. If the Document does not identify any Invariant Sections then there are none.
(end quote)
-- Jake Nelson
Jake Nelson wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
It would probably be impractical for us to take anything but the definitions from thes works, but I do note that the quoted comments say "we do not allow anyone to alter our material". The GFDL does allow alterations, but also allows invariable sections. We allow the downstream user to do what he will with the material, with no declaration of invariant sections. Wouldn't it make more sense to have all quotations declared invariant.
Can't do it. Invariant Sections are a subset of Secondary Sections under the GFDL: see definitions below. Basically, it's for acknowledgements, legal disclaimers, etc. If, say, the quotations were all in a separate appendix, never in an entry page itself, and were considered not to "fall directly within" "the Document's overall subject" - highly unlikely for any Wikimedia project I can think of - then it could be declared Invariant. However, this would require every downstream user to republish the quotations appendix in full in every derivative work, no matter what it is.
From the GFDL's definitions section: (see [[Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License]])
A "Secondary Section" is a named appendix or a front-matter section of the Document that deals exclusively with the relationship of the publishers or authors of the Document to the Document's overall subject (or to related matters) and contains nothing that could fall directly within that overall subject. (Thus, if the Document is in part a textbook of mathematics, a Secondary Section may not explain any mathematics.) The relationship could be a matter of historical connection with the subject or with related matters, or of legal, commercial, philosophical, ethical or political position regarding them.
The "Invariant Sections" are certain Secondary Sections whose titles are designated, as being those of Invariant Sections, in the notice that says that the Document is released under this License. If a section does not fit the above definition of Secondary then it is not allowed to be designated as Invariant. The Document may contain zero Invariant Sections. If the Document does not identify any Invariant Sections then there are none.
(end quote)
The quotations do hava a historical connection with the subject matter. Non-distortion of quoted material could also be viewed as an ethical position.. The "Secondary Section" part of the above could be read such that a relationshio is only required for front matter. (The verb is "deals" not "deal".) It may be a little awkward but each quote could be arganized so as to be a separate appendix.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Withoiut standardized definitions for psychiatric disorders you end up with Scientology.
This is an obvious logical fallacy. Scientologists do oppose modern psychiatry, but this does not imply that all opponents of modern psychiatry are Scientologists. In fact, consensus opinion among PhD holders in psychology is that the DSM is for the most part wrongheaded; the American Psychological Association has published several volumes collecting such criticism.
-Mark
Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
It would probably be impractical for us to take anything but the
definitions from thes works, but I do note that the quoted comments say "we do not allow anyone to alter our material". The GFDL does allow alterations, but also allows invariable sections. We allow the downstream user to do what he will with the material, with no declaration of invariant sections. Wouldn't it make more sense to have all quotations declared invariant.
No. The idea of "Invariant Section" is to have a section that can never be altered or _removed_ from a GFDL book.
For example, if I modify the manual for GNU Emacs, I cannot modify "GNU General Public License", "The GNU Manifesto", nor "Distribution" (which explains how to obtain Emacs from GNU), but further, I must include all three of those sections with my modified manual.
Suppose that all quotes in Wikibooks are Invariant Sections. Then even if I want to copy and redistribute one chapter of a Wikibook, then I must also include all of the quotes found in all other chapters of that Wikibook. If I want to merge one chapter of that Wikibook into a Wikipedia article, then Wikipedia must contain all of the Invariant-Section quotes from the Wikibook, even quotes that are now irrelevant. Further, these quotes must all be in separate sections, not directly in the Wikipedia article. -- [[Wikibooks:User:Kernigh]] ___________________________________________________ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org