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

[Phoebe Ayers]

On 12/21/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
> 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.
>

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