[WikiEN-l] Copyright question

[Ray Saintonge]

John Lee wrote:

>On 4/3/07, Ken Arromdee <arromdee at rahul.net> wrote:
>  
>
>>On Tue, 3 Apr 2007, John Lee wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>What I'm saying is, there's no reason we can't use primary sources if there
>>>      
>>>
>>>are already secondary sources. It's silly not to use what's available. But
>>>      
>>>
>>>if there are no secondary sources, how can we justify bringing up our own
>>>      
>>>
>>>novel interpretation of the primary sources, and becoming a secondary
>>>source?
>>>      
>>>
>>In this case, it's the word "interpretation" which you're stretching out of
>>all reasonableness.
>>
>>Procedures like making simple logical deductions, arranging in
>>alphabetical
>>order, or collecting lists of items are not interpretations.
>>    
>>
>I chose the word "interpretation" for a reason. Sorry if I didn't make this
>clear earlier, but I'm not debating the Top Gear case at all - truth be
>told, I forgot that that was the original topic in the first place. I'm
>speaking in general terms about policy, because it seems to me that Phil is
>advocating a view of policy that permits primary sources even where
>secondary sources don't exist.
>
Sometimes that the most sensible approach.  Every article giving a plot 
outline of a TV show episode does this.

Ec