Indeed. Natasha 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 >copyright statements. >For example, recently published fiction books include the following >statement: > >"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 >publisher's permission? >What about students who study the book at school? Should they request >permission to quote? > >Natasha > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- 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 http://www.stu.ca/inkshed/ -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-