On 4/9/2010 1:37 AM, Bill wrote:
"Morris wrote in message
...
On 4/8/2010 10:21 PM, Bill wrote:
"Morris wrote in message
...
On 4/8/2010 9:57 PM, Bill wrote:
"Morris wrote in message
...
On 4/8/2010 12:04 PM, Bill Leonhardt wrote:

Take heed and make a permanent copy of the valuable things you find.

If it looks like it has value, steal it?

I think the sentiments were to keep things from becoming lost...as the
publisher would probably would have liked.

And so before the author has a chance to expire, you would steal his
work - just in case he made no provision for its continued publication?

It's theft, and it honors no one.

Maybe we're talking about two different things. I have never been to the
site under discussion. But if I had investment myself in constructing a
site, I would like it to have as much permanence as possible--sort of
like
planting a tree. I'm not talking about anything that has to do with
theft...I'm talking about preservation. Do you think people write books
mostly for the money (not in my field of expertise they don't...lol)?

I understand the desire to preserve that which one values...

...and I maintain that taking someone else's property without their
permission and without an exchange of value for value, is theft.

Under international law, the right to make copies of authored (drawn,
sculpted, photographed, composed, recorded,...) materials is the property
of the creator from the very instant of creation.

Opinions on an author's motivation have no relevance, and calling theft
"preservation" doesn't change its nature.

In my experience, fewer than one in a thousand of those who "value" work
sufficiently to want to "preserve" it, value it enough even to say "Thank
you for showing it to me."

I wasn't talking about those high-volume sexy sites. ; )
As an example, don't you think that the content of all of the "What is it?"
threads should be formally archived? Most of the folks at the sites
that I go to are pretty respectful folks.

Archiving is already taken care of. Google may be screwing it up these
days but they do make a pretty good attempt to keep the archive of every
USENET post that gets to their servers, except those with the
x-no-archive header or those that have been removed either at the
request of the author or because they were in some manner or other unlawful.

Of course if Google goes under that archive goes away.

The trouble with the "what is it" threads is that they don't make much
sense without the "what is it" images to go with them, and those images
belong to the site owner or whoever shoots them for him.