lady express (just to distinguish you from nurse Cherie):

I don't know all copyright rules either and they seem like they're changing all the time with the advent of the internet.

Just a link to Paul's website would have been sufficient anyway to share all his good information here. This didn't even have to become an issue unless someone is TRYING to take credit for work they didn't write.

I think that's the thing. We all have information we've collected. And if it's for personal use we can keep it in any form we like. But the internet is a big ol audience and that audience deserves to know who wrote the material. Even the exception of copying "for educational purposes", that only allows you to COPY it to a certain extent, it does not except anyone from the requirement to give the source. And I don't think the internet is included in the "educational" exception anyway since publications that people pay to receive want to ensure that the information isn't available publically for free by someone that has put it on the internet. Otherwise no one could publish material and charge for it if someone else has shared it publically "for educational purposes" for free. They still need to prevent that so that can earn a living. And the author definitely should get credit for writing it to begin with.

I understand that it sometimes seems unfair not to be able to share information if we can't provide the source. But if you look at the bigger picture, it also seems unfair to be able to share it and claim authorship when someone else put in the work. To me that is the bigger harm. After all, with the internet and good search engines, it's usually quite easy to find a source of material even if we don't have it in our personal materials.

I just think the authors and publishers deserve the recognition and that is the overriding concern here.

Wannabe...
PRIVATE Messaging is PRIVATE. You erred in a way greater than I by publishing publically , information I'd given you in private. I posted public domain information on this forum and talked to you PRIVATELY. You broke confidence. Thank you Joan and Cherie for helping to resolve this. Like both of you, I have a great deal to share that would benefit the community.

***sigh...

I didn't publish publically. I said you gave me your background. I didn't say WHAT your background was. You did. But even so, I never agreed to receive your message in private. Just because you chose to send it means that I have obligations because of it? Give me a break.

Where does it say that a. private messaging is an opportunity for people to privately attack others in a way that they don't want the public to know about and b. that private messaging is a system where we can't even ACKNOWLEDGE receiving a private message (which is essentially what I did. I didn't copy your PM publically nor did I disclose the specifics of it). I have read many many times people say: "you have a PM" or "I wrote you a PM" or "I sent you the information in a PM". I'm sure I could find instances where you have said just such statements or similar.

How is that different than what I have done here? Wait, don't answer. I just don't want to defend myself anymore against these silly allegations. You have said alot more about the private messages than I have here.

This is going off on a tangent anyway. The issue is sourcing. I don't need to be attacked publically OR privately by you because of asking you to give your source. I hope you will appreciate one day that this issue of sourcing was brought to your attention by me (and others) and you were given an opportunity to correct your misstatements and lack of proper sourcing instead of it ending with being publically chastised by the true author of the work, or fined heavily or sued.

Comment deleted

Cherie. Please. Let's give this a rest. It's not good for my health to be personally insulted and this is an MS forum where the information should be about MS. A discussion about giving sources IS an appropriate topic if people are going to copy material. Let's not make this a mudslinging fest or about anything else but sourcing okay?

I'm assuming that Cherie/clinical1 would like her thread to be salvaged or duplicated with the quoted material back in place for people to see, as soon as possible.

I noticed that Paul Jones mentions on his Website that he takes a long time to reply to reply to his e-mail sometimes. I think we who have MS can understand this.

Since it may be a while before a reply giving permission to quote comes along, I think Cherie/lady_express's idea is a good one: Put up a new thread, paste in the quoted material, indicating that it's a quotation, and give the URL you got it from.

I don't know copyright law very well either, but I use a common-sense approach sometimes. If I'd written that material and seen it posted as it was, with no attribution or indication that Cherie didn't write it, I'd have been mad.

After all, I was the one who chose the words and put them together. For many people that is no easy task. I've heard people say they sweat blood over every paragraph, every sentence. This can be literally true. I've seen graduate students get stuck for weeks on carving out a single sentence.

I have a small message board, and recently a member of it quoted a post from another message board--a post by someone not registered on our message board. She learned about it and asked me to have it deleted. She said she had posted it on that other message board, not on mine, and she didn't want it being transported to other locations, where it could be taken out of context.

I agreed with her completely, and as she happens to be a lawyer, I had a notion she knew what she was talking about. I asked the poster to delete the quotation, and she did. She could have given permission to use the quotation, but she didn't.

I've said before in this thread that there is another very good reason for giving a source. A reader often wants to look up the source, SEE the quoted material in its original context, and maybe look around further on that source.

Sometimes quotations are given without supplying the figures or the references, for instance. I've often gone to the original source to look at these. There are figures in the Paul Jones Webpage. People might want to look at them. They're not easily copied and pasted, and so they didn't make it into Cherie/clinical1's copy.

I agree. That is a good solution, in this instance.

I don't think it was a matter of Cherie "TRYING to take credit" . . . but more of a situation where Cherie just didn't percieve the same value (as you), in tracking "whom" to credit with writing/providing this information.

Continuing to accuse Cherie of purposely trying to mislead people is probably just adding fueling the fire though (even if it is true). The goal is to get resolution, in my mind, not assign blame.

I doubt very much that Paul didn't do the same thing; copy from other sites, to some extent. We all do that . . . as absolutely everything "factual" about this disease is taken from "somewhere". Otherwise, it is just our opinion . . . and even opinions are formed from information we have gleaned from reading something.

Creative opinions are often theoretically afforded copyright protection too, so I don't really see how we can be held accountible for defining where we heard everything we write. That would mean something as simple as recommending a certain off-label drug, or providing a list of side-effects about that drug, would "officially" be stealing proprietory information. That's a lot of drama, jsut to share information for the benefit of others.

I feel this is a WASTE, not "unfair".

My notes include details derived from many different sources of information - and is written it into into a more "comprehensive" resource. This includes much of my own wording (and opinion), but in effect, I guess that information should not be posted on a board (if we are to follow copyright to the letter) . . . ?

With the advent of the internet, prosecution for not following copywrite law is almost unheard of (even considered petty by many courts).

I agree, in principle, particularly if the entire source of information is copied verbatim. That requires some discipline/effort (if drawing from old notes), but where practical, it is most definitely the "fair" thing to do. Hence, I have made it a habit of attaching a link, where possible.

Cherie

lady express -

This is the phrase that I have objected to. Someone knows if they wrote something or not. This statement is in fact absolutely not true and I think misleading people into believing you wrote it when you didn't is a VERY big issue.

I agree before this statement that this was probably an innocent error of not offering a source. And I treated it as such. But this line leads me to believe that there was intention. I know what I write and what I haven't. It sticks in your mind if you spent time and energy writing something. The language itself will give me clues if I've truly forgotten. For example, I would know that I didn't write this Paul Jones article because I never say the word: "crikey".

I would have thought that if someone was innocently making mistakes and this was brought to their attention, they would be contrite and really be eager to correct the misperceptions and errors in not giving credit. And would appreciate that someone had pointed this out to them before they got into big trouble or was fined or sued. I haven't seen that and that is unfortunate.

I respect that you see this differently though. Hopefully we can all learn together to make sure that people DO get credit for their work.

Hi everyone, we are in this fight against MS TOGETHER to support each other; together we stand divided we fall. Let us support each other!!!! MS is enough of a battle to deal with. Love you ALL!!!!!!

Yes, and, also people whom are new to trying to understanding their testing procedures and the terms and how to cope if dx is made are also reading and wanting to know more.

Can't this thread just be let go? It started on a high note and now... if I found myself faced at the point I was a couple of years ago: I'd be leaving here as fast as possible. No one wants to be ensnared in a firestorm while trying to find info. and support.

Who wrote what? I dunno. But the info that was initially shared was helpful in understanding. I'm sorry that it's gone, when no one has still offered info. about whom actually authored it. Maybe, as I mentioned, it is Public Domain, which actually means that attribution is not mandated.

If I were "new" to being sent for testing, I wouldn't have a part of what's going on here and likely find myself feeling alone.

Can everyone please move on?