It's one thing to distribute freely something that is not meant to be distributed freely (i.e. music) under current copyright laws (*), as in the Napster case, and it is another thing to distribute for a price something that is meant to be distributed for free.
This is stupid. When you write something, you own the copyright. Most American universities have 'publication' in some form as a requirement for the Ph.D. You can publish it through an academic press, if you're lucky, but most people opt for a more automatic method. Some universities "publish" dissertations as working papers or even by putting X copies in the library system; however, the majority have an arrangement with University Microfilms to do it for them. You fill out a form, send your copy to UMI, they microfilm it, and pay you royalties for any copies they sell. I've made about a hundred bucks on mine since 1992--insignificant. You also give UMI an abstract, which they publish in Dissertation Abstracts both in hard copy and on line. This is the abstract you're seeing at Contentville--it's not "stolen" and neither is the dissertation.
It's quite likely that this process is treated as so pro forma at many universities that authors are ardly even aware that it's happening. But the original copyright holder retains copyright and is due royalties per the agreement with UMI.
Slashdot Mirror
It's one thing to distribute freely something that is not meant to be distributed freely (i.e. music) under current copyright laws (*), as in the Napster case, and it is another thing to distribute for a price something that is meant to be distributed for free.
This is stupid. When you write something, you own the copyright. Most American universities have 'publication' in some form as a requirement for the Ph.D. You can publish it through an academic press, if you're lucky, but most people opt for a more automatic method. Some universities "publish" dissertations as working papers or even by putting X copies in the library system; however, the majority have an arrangement with University Microfilms to do it for them. You fill out a form, send your copy to UMI, they microfilm it, and pay you royalties for any copies they sell. I've made about a hundred bucks on mine since 1992--insignificant. You also give UMI an abstract, which they publish in Dissertation Abstracts both in hard copy and on line. This is the abstract you're seeing at Contentville--it's not "stolen" and neither is the dissertation.
It's quite likely that this process is treated as so pro forma at many universities that authors are ardly even aware that it's happening. But the original copyright holder retains copyright and is due royalties per the agreement with UMI.