[Foundation-l] "Fair Use does not apply to DSM material or any other APA/APPI content." um, wtf?

[Ray Saintonge]

Any File wrote:

>David Gerard wrote:
>  
>
>>        [Response re: DSM-IV-TR criteria (all identifiers removed,
>>original forwarded to permissions at 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.
>
>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