Perhaps they have, but I have not noticed an abundance of corporations in this world who intentionally turn down legal ways of earning money. In fact that is why corporations exist. Perhaps you are confusing them with charities.
As long as they have legally obtained this, it should not matter from a legal perspective if they obtained these texts from Warren Buffet or from teenage orphans living in a nunnery.
Come back to me when you see these noble scientists foregoing nicer homes, cars, etc. if an opportunity arises
Quote: Depends on exactly how you interpret "this information" but almost certainly no. Elsevier has the copyright on the specific expression written by the authors, but it does not have any property rights to the underlying facts and information. The big beef is that they are trying to get such rights by only letting you read their text if you sign a license that has such terms in it.
Response: Agreed. Rephrasing the question, does Elsevier have a legal or contractual obligation to provide non-copyrightable facts and information that has been organized in the way that this information is organized?
If it does, what is the extent of that obligation?
I know I'm going to sound like someone working at your GC's office down the hall, but to me, I think all of this boils down to several basic questions:
1) Did Elsevier obtain this information in accordance with the law and with existing contractual rights and obligations, yes or no?
2) Does Elsevier have property rights in this information, yes or no?
3) Do Elsevier's protocols for allowing access to this information comply with law and with existing contractual rights and obligations, yes or no?
If the answer to all of these questions is "yes," then any rights to access that Elsevier grants in addition to what it is obligated, is irrelevant.
All of you folks, if you think Elsevier needs to do more based on a "moral imperative," I can think of a lot more things that people don't do voluntarily that they should which have a greater impact on humanity. Go after them first. If I read one more anonymous cowrard plugging away at what, in his not so humble opinion, some random company "should" or "shouldn't" do, I will barf.
I fully expect Obama to any minute now explain why the most important thing America needs to do right now is ensure that no one thinks that any of this terrorism has anything to do with Islam. It just so happens that a lot of these folsk are kind of intense about Islam.
Similarly, we need to be sure and undertand that the Crusades had nothing to do with Christianity. Those folks were also just by happenstance kind of intense about Jesus.
On many occasions, I've needed to find an in-depth interpretation of a fairly arcane area of the law or public policy. Buying one or more of several exhaustively researched books on the specific subject plus the annual updates could cost me well into the thousands of dollars.
Now I don't have to buy anything. I get the benefit of their research and work, and I don't even have to search through an index! What could be more convenient or cost-effective?
Now, I'm sure that this has not occurred to anyone else, and few others will do what I'm doing (because this is hard to figure out) so I'm sure that these books will keep on being published and bought well into the future.
It's truly amazing how little one sees and understands when one wears anti government blinders.
Um...that's the whole point. It is the government's classified information. It has the right to disclose (your pejorative "leak") any of its information for its own political purposes whenever it damn well feels like doing so. Its ITS information. Just because it can, and does, so, does not mean that unauthorized leaks by Snowdon become ok.
I have the right to publish my mental health diagnosis. That does not create a right by my psychologist, whom I hired to treat me, to do so.
Then we are in agreement that each case must be looked at based on the individual facts presented.
In light of this, perhaps such an analysis would be better served by avoiding creating any possible implication that his conduct in accusing someone else of similar conduct has any bearing on the issue.
Your moral outrage that he dare have rights under tort law even though he may have committed similar torts against someone else was well noted the first time you stated it. Repeating it won't create the presumption that his rights against others thereby become reduced. And you do.
You will find that, remarkably, in the United States the standard for determining if a person had a civil wrong committed against him does not depend on whether, in an unrelated matter to this fact pattern, the person himself committed a similar civil wrong against a different person.
And the reason Techdirt thinks that saying that a Hollywood actor is a cocaine addict is obviously far from any possible reality (and therefore no one would ever consider it a statement of fact, and therefore not defamatory) is what, precisely?