In a message dated 1/29/00 4:05:24 PM, [log in to unmask] writes:

<< But I do think the people who posted the articles were trying to offer a
service, and might well take offence at the idea they were 'stealing'.
Legally, maybe, morally....no.
 >>

I hesitate to jump in--but the whole thing that people just don't get about
copyright laws is that they protect an author or publisher's ownership of
honest-to-goodness work. Owning copyrighted material is like owning real
property. Reprinting it without permission is petty theft. This is not just a
legality. It is an ethical  issue. That arrangement of words belongs to
someone else. The net may eventually  upset many of our current concepts
about ownership of written material, but for now, you have to respect that
ethical line. I would venture to guess that the same standards hold in the UK
as in the US, since copyright laws are based on international agreements. It
isn't about intentions. It isn't about whether the Washington Post will ever
come after you. It's just what's right.

Gwen Gotsch
Oak Park, IL
who went to the Washington Post web site to read the story as soon as she saw
the url--so excited am I about having LLLI's Breastfeeding Pure and Simple in
Walmart (though I don't own the copyright).

             ***********************************************
The LACTNET mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software together with L-Soft's LSMTP(TM)
mailer for lightning fast mail delivery. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html