Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

RE: AISC Latest Move - Different View Point

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Title: RE: AISC Latest Move - Different View Point

In response to Tom Higgin's comments, I should just like to point out that there is a distinction in law between printed material and electronic material. As an illustration, Bill Gates now owns the electronic reproduction rights to some of the world's most prestigious art - but he cannot print it onto paper without paying royalties.

Provided that AISC does indeed hold exclusive rights to electronic reproduction of the data, they are within their rights to limit electronic reproduction by others or to ask for some sort of payment. This is quite distinct from the right to make reference to the data (as in an academic paper), which I do not think that AISC is seeking to limit.

As a slight aside, it is interesting to make a comparison with the law profession where lawyers expect to have to spend large sums of money to keep up to date with case law. Maybe one thing that this all highlights is that we should simply be better at passing on costs to our clients.

See for sample costs - frighteningly high!

Andrew Mole

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Higgins [mailto:thiggins(--nospam--at)]
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 5:47 PM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)
Subject: Re: AISC Latest Move - Different View Point

I assert that I have the right to use the information contained in the AISC tables.  Why?  The "fair use" doctrine of copyright law.  After all, people purchase books and other published matter in order to use them, in some fashion.  I have purchased, or my employers have purchesed for me, several AISC manuals.  I can see six of them from where I'm sitting.  There are probably 40 AISC manuals in this office as a whole.  They were expensive.