MICHAEL RYAN wrote:
>Natasha: If I may, were you citing from the book? This does open a can of worms, as even the reproduction of the citation itself, that forbids reproduction, must in itself be forbidden; though it is no doubt itself a reproduction of a public law, regulation or associated document.
> Thus, the copyright symbol is itself, copyrighted.
> What interesting times.
> Michael J. Ryan
>Natasha Artemeva <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Russ Hunt wrote:
>>I say it's worth reading, even though I don't agree with many of
>>Ritter's assumptions. Alhough she waves in the direction of what
>>Regina says she liked ("educating students about these issues"),
>>she doesn't ask what seems to me the important question, which
>>is, "why do we assume that students producing 'good' essays with
>>'singular student authorship' actually teaches the students much
>>or shows us anything valuable?"
>YES! I couldn't agree more.
>This discussion has prompted me to start paying attention to various
>For example, recently published fiction books include the following
>"No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic
>or mechanical means,
>including information storage and retrieval systems, without permission
>in writing from the publisher,
>except by a reviewer, who may quote brief passages in a review."
>Now, does it mean that one cannot use a quote as an epigraph without the
>What about students who study the book at school? Should they request
>permission to quote?
To leave the list, send a SIGNOFF CASLL command to
[log in to unmask] or, if you experience difficulties,
write to Russ Hunt at [log in to unmask]
For the list archives and information about the organization,
its newsletter, and the annual conference, go to