Ron Seybold writes:

>Just because its legal doesn't mean it's ethical. Borrowing someone
>else's work -- or abstracting, as your boss Paul Gillin likes to call
>it -- should require compensation, or at the least, permission. We're
>not in the business of providing your company with content to sell to
>its advertisers. Especially while you use headlines that slur the
>3000 community.

Even abstracting requires at least attribution.

Or perhaps, the intent was to use the less-common meaning of "abstract":

  abstract, vt: ... steal, purloin...

     (Webster's 9th New Collegiate Dictionary)

Granted, I had to reach down into the fifth definition, but that's
apparently just as good as the first one.

>[George Thompson writes:]
>>Summarizing the content you willing enter into
>>the public domain is not in anyway reproducing or copying your original
>>expression.

Copyrighted content placed on a web site is *not* in the public domain.

-- Bruce

PS. I've also been dealing with someone stealing material from my web
site. At least it's not my livelihood, as it is with Ron.

- B


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Toback    Tel: (602) 996-8601| My candle burns at both ends;
OPT, Inc.            (800) 858-4507| It will not last the night;
11801 N. Tatum Blvd. Ste. 142      | But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends -
Phoenix AZ 85028                   | It gives a lovely light.
btoback AT optc.com                |     -- Edna St. Vincent Millay
Mail sent to [log in to unmask] will be inspected for a
fee of US$250. Mailing to said address constitutes agreement to
pay, including collection costs.