please don't post full text of articles

December 3, 2007

Hi everyone,Frequently, people post the full text of articles from various publications here in this yahoo group. This is a copyright violation and should be avoided at all costs. It is essentially stealing from the writer and/or publication in which it originally appeared. The way to go about it is to either post a link to the article, or to contact the writer/publication and ask for permission before sending the full text -- just don't be surprised if they say no. Please let me know if you have questions. I am a freelance journalist so this is an issue I am very familiar with. Thanks for your understanding, Dawn WeinbergerFreelance Writerdawn.weinberger@...www.dawnweinberger.comwww.carlanddawn.blogspot.com

December 3, 2007

-----Original Message-----

>>>Frequently, people post the full text of articles from various

publications here in this yahoo group.

Often someone has to

be a registered member of a site in order to access articles. This takes time & sometimes personal

information that some people would rather not bother with. I know “Pat” donates her time

to send in full text articles from Medscape for just this reason. It’s a service she generously provides

so people who don’t have regular access can still read the latest news.

>>> It is essentially stealing from the writer and/or

publication in which it originally appeared.

I include doctor’s

names, hospital names or a journal name with an abstract or study. Most if not all of the news items/articles

I send in are from newspapers or web sites and are already in the public domain.

I’m not sure anyone would be

really upset, if we post their work, especially considering we don’t do

it for monetary gain, or entertainment, but to improve someone’s health

and welfare. I don’t consider

what I do as stealing, some may, I don’t, but if enough people think I

shouldn’t send in stuff anymore – I’ll stop.

>>>The way to go about it is to either post a link to the

article, or to contact the writer/publication and ask for permission before

sending the full text.

Often we send in just a

link, but it’s time consuming and for those who get the digest, it’s

impossible for them to use as their links are not live. If I had to write and ask permission

before posting anything, I would stop doing it. We each have only so many hours in a day. Honestly, I don’t remember the

last time I saw something say it was copyrighted, but then again I don’t

look for it. I do however understand as a writer,

this is an important issue for you and you want credit for what you write.

Barb in Texas - Together in the Fight, Whatever it Takes!

Son Ken (33) UC 91 - PSC 99 - Tx 6/21 & 6/30/07 @ Baylor in Dallas

December 3, 2007

Barb,

The bottom line is this is breaking the law. The writer/publication

owns the text. You must get their permission. It doesn't matter if you

consider it stealing or not -- it is. And it doesn't matter what the

group consensus is. It is stealing. I promise you -- the majority of

professional writers DO mind when their work is reprinted without

permission. Just because something is online does not mean it is in

the public domain. Those publications PAY the writer to use the

article, and we (as writers) sign contracts with those publication

which often indicate that the article CANNOT be published elsewhere or

cannot be republished within a certain timeframe. And yes, newsgroups

and message groups count as reprints. Plus, you mention there are some

articles that cannot be read unless someone is a member or has a

subscription to a certain site. That's right, and so to copy and paste

here is not just stealing from the writer but stealing from the

publication as well.

I don't mean to sound caustic here, but there really isn't anything to

debate. I'm doing a favor by letting the group know.

Please, I urge you to refrain from posting any more articles.

>

> -----Original Message-----

> >>>Frequently, people post the full text of articles from various

> publications here in this yahoo group.

> Often someone has to be a registered member of a site in order to access

> articles. This takes time & sometimes personal information that some

> people would rather not bother with. I know " Pat " donates her time to

> send in full text articles from Medscape for just this reason. It's a

> service she generously provides so people who don't have regular access

> can still read the latest news.

>

> >>> It is essentially stealing from the writer and/or publication in

> which it originally appeared.

> I include doctor's names, hospital names or a journal name with an

> abstract or study. Most if not all of the news items/articles I send in

> are from newspapers or web sites and are already in the public domain.

> I'm not sure anyone would be really upset, if we post their work,

> especially considering we don't do it for monetary gain, or

> entertainment, but to improve someone's health and welfare. I don't

> consider what I do as stealing, some may, I don't, but if enough people

> think I shouldn't send in stuff anymore - I'll stop.

>

> >>>The way to go about it is to either post a link to the article, or to

> contact the writer/publication and ask for permission before sending the

> full text.

> Often we send in just a link, but it's time consuming and for those who

> get the digest, it's impossible for them to use as their links are not

> live. If I had to write and ask permission before posting anything, I

> would stop doing it. We each have only so many hours in a day.

> Honestly, I don't remember the last time I saw something say it was

> copyrighted, but then again I don't look for it. I do however

> understand as a writer, this is an important issue for you and you want

> credit for what you write.

>

> Barb in Texas - Together in the Fight, Whatever it Takes!

> Son Ken (33) UC 91 - PSC 99 - Tx 6/21 & 6/30/07 @ Baylor in Dallas

>

December 3, 2007

-----Original Message-----

The

bottom line is this is breaking the law.

It might help if I

knew which article you’re talking about or are you speaking just in

general terms?

Barb in Texas - Together in the Fight, Whatever it Takes!

Son Ken (33) UC 91 - PSC 99 - Tx 6/21 & 6/30/07 @ Baylor in Dallas

December 3, 2007

I'm speaking in general terms, but the one that came through earlier

today called 'Rare Liver Transplant Offers Hope' reminded me that

something had to be said.

This article comes from AP. AP is a news service and they charge

newspapers for their right to print their articles.

>

> -----Original Message-----

> The bottom line is this is breaking the law.

>

> It might help if I knew which article you're talking about or are you

> speaking just in general terms?

>

> Barb in Texas - Together in the Fight, Whatever it Takes!

> Son Ken (33) UC 91 - PSC 99 - Tx 6/21 & 6/30/07 @ Baylor in Dallas

>

December 3, 2007

>>>> The bottom line is

this is breaking the law.

What can I say Dawn? If someone wants to come after me for

posting articles, then so be it.

They can’t squeeze blood from a turnip and after PSC has done

it’s damage, that’s all they are going to get out of me. Not to mention we have freeze warnings

out for tonight, so guess you can forget the turnips too. Unless someone wants to start a legal

defense fund ;-) If the group wants

me to stop, I certainly will, otherwise I’m truly sorry you’re

offended. Honestly, we’ve

been doing this since 1999 and you’re the first to complain.

>>>> I'm

speaking in general terms, but the one that came through earlier today called 'Rare Liver

Transplant Offers Hope' reminded me that

something had to be said. This article comes from

AP. AP is a news service and they charge newspapers for their right to print their

articles.

I just did a Google search – the first page had 23

other groups (TV, radio, web sites etc) all re-printed this article today. I’m sure they all paid for it, so

coming after a little fish like me, probably isn’t worth their

effort. Besides, I did use the staff

writers name and I did say it was from the AP.

>>>I don't mean to sound caustic here, but there really isn't

anything to debate. I'm doing a favor by letting the group know.

Thank you very much for

letting me/us know. You did what you felt you needed to, now I’ll do the

same.

Barb

in Texas - Together in the Fight, Whatever it Takes!

Son Ken (33) UC 91 - PSC 99 - Tx 6/21 & 6/30/07 @ Baylor in Dallas

.._,___

December 3, 2007

I feel what Barb does is a service to all of us..I have learned a lot from the different articles....The way I feel is if they didn't want it read or copied don't put it on the Internet Jeanne PSC/UC STAGE 4Barb Henshaw wrote: >>>> The bottom line is this is breaking the law. What can I say Dawn? If someone wants to come after me for posting articles, then so be it. They can’t squeeze blood from a turnip and after PSC has done it’s damage, that’s all they are going to get out of me. Not to mention we have freeze warnings out for tonight, so guess you can forget the turnips too. Unless someone wants to start a legal defense fund ;-) If the group wants me to stop, I certainly will, otherwise I’m truly sorry you’re offended. Honestly, we’ve been doing this since 1999 and you’re the first to complain. >>>> I'm speaking in general terms, but the one that came through earlier today called 'Rare Liver Transplant Offers Hope' reminded me thatsomething had to be said. This article comes from AP. AP is a news service and they charge newspapers for their right to print their articles.I just did a Google search – the first page had 23 other groups (TV, radio, web sites etc) all re-printed this article today. I’m sure they all paid for it, so coming after a little fish like me, probably isn’t worth their effort. Besides, I did use the staff

writers name and I did say it was from the AP. >>>I don't mean to sound caustic here, but there really isn't anything to debate. I'm doing a favor by letting the group know. Thank you very much for letting me/us know. You did what you felt you needed to, now I’ll do the same. Barb in Texas - Together in the Fight, Whatever it Takes! Son Ken (33) UC 91 - PSC 99 - Tx 6/21 & 6/30/07 @ Baylor in Dallas ._,___

December 3, 2007

There is a strong movement at NIH (and elsewhere in the scientific

community) to make scientific articles that are FUNDED by citizen

taxpayers (i.e. us), and that deal with health issues/medical

research, should be 'open access', free of charge, and not subject to

typical copyright; see for example:

_______________

Open Access to Research

http://www.publicknowledge.org/issues/openaccess

Open access (OA) literature is digital, online, free of charge, and

free of most copyright and licensing restrictions. While any kind of

digital content can be OA, there are two compelling reasons why the

worldwide OA movement has focused on peer-reviewed journal articles

and their preprints.

The first reason is that most scholarly journals do not buy their

articles or pay royalties to authors. Since the birth of scientific

journals in 1665, researchers have given away their work in exchange

for intangible rewards such as visibility, impact, prestige,

certification for career advancement, and a time-stamp to establish

their priority over other researchers working on the same problem. As

a result, researchers can consent to OA for their journal articles

without losing revenue. This makes them very differently situated

from most musicians and movie-makers, and controversies about OA for

music and movies do not carry over to research literature.

Second, in the sciences most journal articles are based on funded

research, and most funded research is funded by taxpayers. Citizens

and policy-makers immediately see the logic of providing public

access to the results of publicly-funded research, especially in

fields with great potential for public benefit, such as medicine.

_____________

The vast majority of articles posted here deal with health (liver

disease, IBD etc). I, for one, will continue to post articles on this

web site whenever I see that this can help to answer someone's

questions about health issues, and wherever it helps advance our

understanding of the diseases that we deal with as patients and

caregivers on a day-to-day basis.

We are an orphan disease and if WE don't help OURSELVES with access

to relevant medical literature, then no-one else will!

Dave R.

> -----Original Message-----

> The bottom line is this is breaking the law.

December 3, 2007

I'm not offended -- I just wanted to make sure the group actually knew

that this was a copyright violation. Most people simply don't know the

law. I'm sorry you feel this way. I guess it seems strange to me,

because the articles are clearly of value to you and others.

>

> >>>> The bottom line is this is breaking the law.

> What can I say Dawn? If someone wants to come after me for posting

> articles, then so be it. They can't squeeze blood from a turnip and

> after PSC has done it's damage, that's all they are going to get out of

> me. Not to mention we have freeze warnings out for tonight, so guess

> you can forget the turnips too. Unless someone wants to start a legal

> defense fund ;-) If the group wants me to stop, I certainly will,

> otherwise I'm truly sorry you're offended. Honestly, we've been doing

> this since 1999 and you're the first to complain.

>

> >>>> I'm speaking in general terms, but the one that came through

> earlier today called 'Rare Liver Transplant Offers Hope' reminded me

> that

> something had to be said. This article comes from AP. AP is a news

> service and they charge newspapers for their right to print their

> articles.

> I just did a Google search - the first page had 23 other groups (TV,

> radio, web sites etc) all re-printed this article today. I'm sure they

> all paid for it, so coming after a little fish like me, probably isn't

> worth their effort. Besides, I did use the staff writers name and I did

> say it was from the AP.

>

> >>>I don't mean to sound caustic here, but there really isn't anything

> to debate. I'm doing a favor by letting the group know.

> Thank you very much for letting me/us know. You did what you felt you

> needed to, now I'll do the same.

>

> Barb in Texas - Together in the Fight, Whatever it Takes!

> Son Ken (33) UC 91 - PSC 99 - Tx 6/21 & 6/30/07 @ Baylor in Dallas

>

> ._,___

>

December 3, 2007

For a lot of us, getting to the meat of the juicy Hepatology Journal articles is difficult. Unless you have access to a medical school library or you pay an exhorbinant fee to an online agency, you can't GET to the articles, just the short abstracts. For some of us, our doctors are NOT keeping up with the latest research because they see so few PSC patients.

Being proactive and knowlegable about my health is important to me. I really appreciate the journal articles. I archive every last one of them so they are there for me if I need them.

December 3, 2007

So then post a link or an short excerpt or tell us where we can find

the article!

Also, -- have you ever signed any my checks? Nope. The AP is not

a publicly-funded government site. Neither are the two healthcare

publications I write for. The NIH is a different story, of course, and

if policies change so the articles can be free of charge, well then

everyone can feel free to post them all they want.

Just because we either suffer from PSC or love someone who does, does

not give us the right to steal from another group of people.

Sad that you guys feel this way. It is no different than copying

software or a DVD from a friend for your own personal use, which is

also illegal.

>

> There is a strong movement at NIH (and elsewhere in the scientific

> community) to make scientific articles that are FUNDED by citizen

> taxpayers (i.e. us), and that deal with health issues/medical

> research, should be 'open access', free of charge, and not subject to

> typical copyright; see for example:

> _______________

>

> Open Access to Research

>

> http://www.publicknowledge.org/issues/openaccess

>

> Open access (OA) literature is digital, online, free of charge, and

> free of most copyright and licensing restrictions. While any kind of

> digital content can be OA, there are two compelling reasons why the

> worldwide OA movement has focused on peer-reviewed journal articles

> and their preprints.

>

> The first reason is that most scholarly journals do not buy their

> articles or pay royalties to authors. Since the birth of scientific

> journals in 1665, researchers have given away their work in exchange

> for intangible rewards such as visibility, impact, prestige,

> certification for career advancement, and a time-stamp to establish

> their priority over other researchers working on the same problem. As

> a result, researchers can consent to OA for their journal articles

> without losing revenue. This makes them very differently situated

> from most musicians and movie-makers, and controversies about OA for

> music and movies do not carry over to research literature.

>

> Second, in the sciences most journal articles are based on funded

> research, and most funded research is funded by taxpayers. Citizens

> and policy-makers immediately see the logic of providing public

> access to the results of publicly-funded research, especially in

> fields with great potential for public benefit, such as medicine.

> _____________

>

> The vast majority of articles posted here deal with health (liver

> disease, IBD etc). I, for one, will continue to post articles on this

> web site whenever I see that this can help to answer someone's

> questions about health issues, and wherever it helps advance our

> understanding of the diseases that we deal with as patients and

> caregivers on a day-to-day basis.

>

> We are an orphan disease and if WE don't help OURSELVES with access

> to relevant medical literature, then no-one else will!

>

> Dave R.

>

> > -----Original Message-----

> > The bottom line is this is breaking the law.

>

December 3, 2007

It appears that using links is okay, which is what I do (mostly because it's the easiest thing to do). But copying peer-reviewed scientific articles appears to be okay as well. If this is correct, then as long as we follow these guidelines we should be fine, and we're within the law, and not stealing from anyone. Correct?

Marie

To: From: dawn.weinberger@...Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 01:22:23 +0000Subject: Re: please don't post full text of articles

So then post a link or an short excerpt or tell us where we can findthe article! Also, -- have you ever signed any my checks? Nope. The AP is nota publicly-funded government site. Neither are the two healthcarepublications I write for. The NIH is a different story, of course, andif policies change so the articles can be free of charge, well theneveryone can feel free to post them all they want.Just because we either suffer from PSC or love someone who does, doesnot give us the right to steal from another group of people.Sad that you guys feel this way. It is no different than copyingsoftware or a DVD from a friend for your own personal use, which isalso illegal. >> There is a strong movement at NIH (and elsewhere in the scientific > community) to make scientific articles that are FUNDED by citizen > taxpayers (i.e. us), and that deal with health issues/medical > research, should be 'open access', free of charge, and not subject to > typical copyright; see for example:> _______________> > Open Access to Research> > http://www.publicknowledge.org/issues/openaccess> > Open access (OA) literature is digital, online, free of charge, and > free of most copyright and licensing restrictions. While any kind of > digital content can be OA, there are two compelling reasons why the > worldwide OA movement has focused on peer-reviewed journal articles > and their preprints.> > The first reason is that most scholarly journals do not buy their > articles or pay royalties to authors. Since the birth of scientific > journals in 1665, researchers have given away their work in exchange > for intangible rewards such as visibility, impact, prestige, > certification for career advancement, and a time-stamp to establish > their priority over other researchers working on the same problem. As > a result, researchers can consent to OA for their journal articles > without losing revenue. This makes them very differently situated > from most musicians and movie-makers, and controversies about OA for > music and movies do not carry over to research literature.> > Second, in the sciences most journal articles are based on funded > research, and most funded research is funded by taxpayers. Citizens > and policy-makers immediately see the logic of providing public > access to the results of publicly-funded research, especially in > fields with great potential for public benefit, such as medicine.> _____________> > The vast majority of articles posted here deal with health (liver > disease, IBD etc). I, for one, will continue to post articles on this > web site whenever I see that this can help to answer someone's > questions about health issues, and wherever it helps advance our > understanding of the diseases that we deal with as patients and > caregivers on a day-to-day basis. > > We are an orphan disease and if WE don't help OURSELVES with access > to relevant medical literature, then no-one else will! > > Dave R. > > > -----Original Message-----> > The bottom line is this is breaking the law.> Share life as it happens with the new Windows Live. Share now!

December 3, 2007

>

> So then post a link or an short excerpt or tell us where we can find

> the article!

>

Hi Dawn

Sounds like the best compromise. I know if there was a short overview

and then a link I would be happy to click through to it.

Alas, its all about the mighty dollar, if newspapers/webistes etc can

show their advertisers that a certain number of people are reading

their website and so then show the said advertisers that it is

worthwhile advertisng with them.

BUT they don't know that someone at the bottom of the world is reading

the article and most probably will never use the advertisers product...

Grin...

December 3, 2007

,

Thank you. Yes, this (posting links and/or a short excerpt) is really

the only moral and legal solution.

> >

> > So then post a link or an short excerpt or tell us where we can find

> > the article!

> >

>

> Hi Dawn

> Sounds like the best compromise. I know if there was a short overview

> and then a link I would be happy to click through to it.

> Alas, its all about the mighty dollar, if newspapers/webistes etc can

> show their advertisers that a certain number of people are reading

> their website and so then show the said advertisers that it is

> worthwhile advertisng with them.

> BUT they don't know that someone at the bottom of the world is reading

> the article and most probably will never use the advertisers product...

> Grin...

>

December 3, 2007

I feel we (or i will say I have all heard enough) I'm here to learn about PSC/UC and I really don't care where or how they find there information...No maybe we don't sign your check...but I have learned alot about PSC/UC and made some good friends to... And if one day they haul me off to jail so be it. I can what for my transplant there. My Dr's know I read these thing and I give them copy's to.... so lets go back to talking about what this site is for PSC/UC.. Jeanne Dawn Weinberger wrote: So then post a link or an short excerpt or tell us where we can findthe article! Also, -- have you ever signed any my checks? Nope. The AP is nota publicly-funded government site. Neither are the two healthcarepublications I write for. The NIH is a different story, of course, andif policies change so the articles can be free of charge, well theneveryone can feel free to post them all they want.Just because we either suffer from PSC or love someone who does, doesnot give us the right to steal from another group of people.Sad that you guys feel this way. It is no different than copyingsoftware or a DVD from a friend for your own personal use, which isalso illegal. >> There is a strong movement at NIH (and elsewhere in the scientific > community) to make scientific articles that are FUNDED by citizen > taxpayers (i.e. us), and that deal with health issues/medical > research, should be 'open access', free of charge, and not subject to > typical copyright; see for example:> _______________> > Open Access to Research> > http://www.publicknowledge.org/issues/openaccess> > Open access (OA) literature is digital, online, free of charge, and > free of most copyright and licensing restrictions. While any kind of > digital content can be OA, there are two compelling reasons why the > worldwide OA movement has focused on peer-reviewed journal articles > and their preprints.> > The first reason

is that most scholarly journals do not buy their > articles or pay royalties to authors. Since the birth of scientific > journals in 1665, researchers have given away their work in exchange > for intangible rewards such as visibility, impact, prestige, > certification for career advancement, and a time-stamp to establish > their priority over other researchers working on the same problem. As > a result, researchers can consent to OA for their journal articles > without losing revenue. This makes them very differently situated > from most musicians and movie-makers, and controversies about OA for > music and movies do not carry over to research literature.> > Second, in the sciences most journal articles are based on funded > research, and most funded research is funded by taxpayers. Citizens > and policy-makers immediately see the logic of providing public > access to the

results of publicly-funded research, especially in > fields with great potential for public benefit, such as medicine.> _____________> > The vast majority of articles posted here deal with health (liver > disease, IBD etc). I, for one, will continue to post articles on this > web site whenever I see that this can help to answer someone's > questions about health issues, and wherever it helps advance our > understanding of the diseases that we deal with as patients and > caregivers on a day-to-day basis. > > We are an orphan disease and if WE don't help OURSELVES with access > to relevant medical literature, then no-one else will! > > Dave R. > > > -----Original Message-----> > The bottom line is this is breaking the law.>

December 3, 2007

>

> For those of you who feel you have heard enough, I feel that that is a

> very unfortunate attitude. Very, very sad. You don't care where the

> info comes from even if it is taken ILLEGALLY from another source.

>

> Honestly, I have heard enough too.

----------------------------------------

I'm just a wee bit puzzled here ..... how is it terribly sad if WE

have heard enough, but it's ok for YOU to have heard enough on this

issue????

----------------------------------------

> I posted some info for you all, as

> a courtesy because most people just don't know the law.

Well, for starters, it would have been nice if you had performed this

so-called courtesy in a more courteous and diplomatic manner! You

plowed right in accusing all of us ignorant beings of wholesale

thievery and telling us how illegal and immoral our actions are. How

did you think we would react???!!!

Don't talk down to me about copyrights either. I'm quite familiar

with them, having published several magazine articles and presently

working on a book. If I ever write anything which could help someone,

then I honestly don't give a tinker's dam if I get credit or not.

(You see, I kinda don't figure getting credit for my writing is gonna

be much of an issue when I get to heaven and face God.)

What we are talking about in this forum are primarily press releases

(which are intended to be distributed as widely as possible!) and

scientific studies (written up to expand the knowledge of the

scientific community and any other persons interested in the topic at

hand). There are a bunch of us here who are mighty interested in

these things!

All of us have doctors who subscribe to these various medical journals

yet rarely have time to read them (Sheez!!! I've even had my drs.

photocopy items from books in their library and give to me. You want

their names too so you can report them while you're busy mopping up

this wretched scandal?). Many of us routinely print out the studies

presented in this forum and take them to our drs. Most of the drs.

are delighted -- not only to get a specific article brought to their

attention, but to have a patient who cares enough to do so. Our

actions benefit not only ourselves but untold numbers of present and

future patients.

We are struggling against great obstacles to preserve not just our

lives but the quality of our lives. In spite of this, we're glad your

husband fared so well in his liver transplant. Thank heavens you

didn't have to make the agonizing choice of whether to read some

illegal tidbit which might have spared him a bit of suffering. (After

all, if you read it to him, then he would be an accessory to this crime!)

Oh, and Barb -- keep on posting, Honey!!! We need you!!! If your

poor little bloodless turnip gets sucked into a legal vortex on this,

I'm confident we can handle your defense!! After all, we already have

a couple of lawyers in this group and they've never objected!!!!

(Oooooooh! That makes them accessories too, doesn't it?)

Regards,

Carolyn B. in SC

December 3, 2007

Amen! Well said.

Chaim Boermeester, Israel

From:

[mailto: ] On Behalf Of

Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007

03:04

To:

Subject: Re: please

don't post full text of articles

There is a strong movement at NIH (and elsewhere in

the scientific