Slashdot Mirror
The Return of Eric Weisstein's World Of Mathematics
Many readers (like this Anonymous Coward) have written with the good news that "Eric Weisstein's World of Mathematics, a free, online encyclopedia of mathematics was taken off the web thanks to a lawsuit by CRC Publishing. After much legal wrangling, it returns today stronger than ever. See it rise from the ashes at http://mathworld.wolfram.com."
What a horrible ending! CRC is the big winner here. By threataning to bring a lawsuit they probably wouldn't win they have won all sorts of money and rights to the intellectual "property" contained in MathWorld. This case shows as plain as any I have ever seen the problems with our legal system.
main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
i'm sorry, but i don't see how this can be viewed as a win for eric (the creater of the site). crc still holds copyright over everything which was published in the book, extorted money out of eric and his employers, forced them to give crc press rights to future snap shots of the site, make contributers sign a crc submission form, and still have all rights to book. how has eric won? crc beat eric and wolfram with twisted copyright law, and in hte end got everything it wanted. eric and wolfram didn't win, crc won.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Here's a thought for future story submitters: since any posting of this magnitude will guarantee a rapid /.ing of any posted site, why not make the links point to the bad guys, like CRC in this case? If I'm going to /. some web server and still not read the story (which is mirrored in a post below, BTW, just before I was about to post it), then I'd rather /. a server of some guys who quite clearly Have It Coming, And How.
Congrats to Eric and Wolfram, so sorry to see that you had to give in and settle, but on the other hand maybe you made the right choice in order to get this invaluable resource up on the web again. And now we know that CRC is just as low as Gracenote and other money-grubbing "fencing in the commons" corporate scum.
People talk about "piracy" of intellectual property. Well, guess what: downloading a song from Napster isn't piracy. But using a limited right of publication in print form to destroy an entire online encyclopedia is the very definition of piracy. CRC essentially boarded and scuttled mathworld, and now they're selling it back to the rightful owners a piece at a time. So from now on, when Hilary Rosen blathers about piracy, remember: we know the real pirates by their actions. They are CRC, and Gracenote, and any other company that takes a publicly-generated free resource and tries to coopt that resource for their sole gain. It's a valuable lesson: it takes real money and a corporate seal to be a true pirate these days.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
Okay. Gave a book company permission to print a snapshot in time of the website. Book company doesn't do much to promote the book. Said it was a bad seller. Turns around and sues the company who we worked for (who was aiding him with the website) saying it was their best seller. Gets the website shut down.
In the end, he settles with the publisher for what I consider some outrageous terms. Like the publisher can publish a snapshot of the site whenever they want. The website has to cary its copyright, and the book publisher's. Submitters have to sign the book publisher's copyright form. Anything that the author can't certify has to be rewritten.
Hate to say it, but even though his site is still running, he got horribly screwed in the end. [apologies for the pun]
a group of the original submitters (who never signed the CRC "boilerplate") were to sue CRC for copyright infringement?- it book.
It might nullify the contract between Weisstein & CRC, and lead to the demise of the book, but with an adequate number of mirrors - I think the wold is ready for the if-you-want-a-hardcopy-then-download-it-and-print
yes, we have no bananas
This is a really, really sad story. Eric created something wonderful, was a little bit incautious in how he tried to use his material, and ended up losing ownership of his own work. The worst part is that he has lost ownership not only of what he did, but also of whatever he or others might add to it later!
I can see why WRI didn't want to foot the big legal bill for fighting CRC; they don't really care about who owns the content of the site, as long as they can keep it up it will drive people to the web site, which will help them sell copies of Mathematica (an awesome piece of software, BTW, too bad I can't afford a copy -- it's not priced for casual users like me).
However, at the end of it all, Eric and WRI are in a situation now where if they produce more material (or if they accept reader submissions), they're actually adding value to CRC Press' ill-gotten gains! And that really has to rub them the wrong way.
Wouldn't it make more sense for them to stop adding to it, and start another project whose ownership weren't in dispute? Sure, it would mean starting over, but I'll bet the whole thing could be reproduced in a couple of years, particularly if they were to GPL (or similar) everything to encourage submissions. According to the front page, it currently has just over 10K entries; if the project could convince a professor or two from each University in the world to submit a half-dozen entries, and if there were a little organization to keep them from overlapping too much the new site would soon eclipse the old.
Let WRI take down the current Mathworld and leave CRC Press with nothing but a set of dead pages to try to sell! Right now, according to Eric, CRC Press is shortsighted enough to find that an acceptable outcome. I suspect they'd change their mind over time, as the new site grew to eclipse the old and some competitor of theirs got to publish snapshots of the living, breathing #1 math resource on the web.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
We must remember that its not companies that ultimately screw with us, its people. Once people realize they cannot hide behind the corporate curtain, they will start acting more responsible. Granted, reading a contract is incredibly important but supplying a devious contract and calling its "normal, standard and harmless" is pure evil for an editor to do and unethical to the maximum. Rot in hell, Mr. Stern, you're name has been added to the list.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
Let's take a look at the facts. According to the account, it seems the author started the fight long before the CRC filed the lawsuit. First, the author gave the content to Wolfram Research, possibly in exchange for a job. This fundamentally changed the nature of the website from a private enterprise that could support the book to a Wolfram branded resource. One must ask if the book was of any further interest, or if the real goal was keeping the boss happy.
Second, the author complains about lack of promotion 15 months after the book is published. How useful is this book a year later? Many CRC publications are revised yearly. I would think this would especially critical for a snapshot of a website. This again begs the questions about the author's confict of interest between the book promoted by CRC and the website promoted by his boss. There is no reason for CRC to waste ad space if the author is not interested in selling it.
Third, the author complains about the price, citing concern with students. Well, from my experience the best way to help students is to have yearly updates of the book. This encourages a healthy resale market. CRC has always charged the most the market could bear. People who need the resource have paid that price. Student can buy an older copy of fraction of the retail price. Nothing changes so fast that a student needs a spanking new latest book. I used a copy of the math reference that was older than I was. Frankly, I would not have cared if the book were $60, $100, or $150. Any optional book over $20 was out of my reach.
Again, it is not my intention to malign anyone. I just think that all these attacks on CRC publishing are uncalled for. I don?t know for sure why the CRC sued, but it seemed the author did give them plenty or reasons.
One likely reason that Weisstein failed to obtain legal advice in advance of litigation, when it actually could have helped him avoid this situation, is ignorance about what lawyers really do. Businesses and business people of all types, small and large, routinely obtain legal advice before entering into contractual committments. Hiring a lawyer to review a contract is not, as you suggest, a signal that one is going on the warpath, or a manifestation of hostility to one's fellow man. It is, rather, the equivalent of hiring a security consultant to attempt unauthorized entry to your system, and advise you of needed security measures - a prudent precaution.
Don't you want to know whether your network has holes in it like a sieve? OK then, why would you not want to know if your contract has holes in it like a sieve? And why do you consider it detestable to hire an expert to provide you with that information? It's prejudices like yours among the sci-tech crowd that render the Eric Weissteins of the world so vulnerable to this type of exploitation.
No, no, no. This is not a sig.
Ok, I supposed I'm biased from the outset, because I consider lawyers to inherently be intellectual whores, but hear me out. Why is it that laws need to be so complex that you need to consult a lawyer in the first place? I mean, doesn't it appear to anyone else here that there's something wrong with that?
Join the Slashcott! Stay away entirely Feb 10 thru Feb 17! Close all tabs to prevent autorefresh!
And speaking of "blaming the victim," I hear an awful lot of that on Slashdot in other contexts. Aw gee, too bad you got rooted, shouldn't have had your ports open, etc. People here seemingly have no problem understanding that a security lesson can be learned from even the most malicious of system intrusions, provided the victim educates him/herself and takes appropriate precautions in the future. All I'm trying to do is show how that principle applies in the contractual context as well.
No, no, no. This is not a sig.
Couldn't mabye some of the other people who contributed to the site before they made a book out of it sue CRC Press, since they probably never got signatures from all of the submitters? a few hundred mathematicians bringing lawsuits against them might teach them a lesson.
Best Slashdot comment ever
Nor did I ever say that CRC's behavior was "perfectly legal." It may well be that CRC egregiously breached the contract -- there are two sides to every lawsuit story. However, the best way to prevent such disputes from arising is to obtain a clear understanding of contractual language and the rights and duties it imposes prior to binding oneself, clarify any ambiguities with the other party prior to binding oneself, and document that entire process in writing. There is nothing mystical about this method, and many people are able to handle it without legal advice.
For those who feel less confident, legal counsel is widely available and not as costly as one might think. (You notice I don't publish my real name or even my email address here, so this is absolutely not a plug for my individual services.) Most lawyers charge less per hour than the scientific and technical consultants we hire to assist in our cases. And guidance on a simple contract would likely take only two to three hours of work.
For example, say a client comes to me and asks "I'm interesting in publishing a book based on my web site. Here's my book contract. If I sign it, can I still do my web site?" I'd briefly review the contract, determine what clause covered the rights being purchased, and draft a brief letter to the publisher along the lines of: "My client has a website. I understand Clause X.2(b) to confer only rights of printed publication, and thus that my client will remain able to operate his website without any payment to you. Is that also your understanding? If not, please advise." Many people are suprised to learn that a court looks not only at the contractual language, but also the parties' communications about the contract, to figure out what the contract requires. And you want to get these things nailed down before signing anything, so they don't come back to bite you later. The cost of legal fees for a simple letter-swap of this nature, customary in all types of business transactions, is miniscule compared to the cost of litigation if you fail to perform it. And, like I said, an informed person can handle this without any legal help at all.
No, no, no. This is not a sig.
I would suggest that anyone who considers submitting to the new site uses "special" variable names, like
crc = press * (sucks)^2, etc.
Just a thought.
Don't Panic...