Hi. It seems that this is a good time to discuss two issues that may be of
concern to Lactnetters.

Message #1: COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT 101- or, How to Protect Yourself from a
Potential Lawsuit!

>It is a direct violation of copyright to post an article in its entirety on
>LACTNET.  Even if you provide complete attribution information, you are in
>essence stealing from the publisher who originally made that article
>available to persons reading the journal/magazine in question.
>
>If you are asked for an article, give ONLY the citation of the article
>(this would include author[s], title of article, Journal/magazine/book
>where it appeared, with volume, page numbers and date).  If you wish to
>paraphrase key elements of the abstract or summary, ok.  DO NOT SCAN IN THE
>ENTIRE ARTICLE AND APPEND IT TO A MESSAGE FOR ALL ON LACTNET TO READ. This
>is equivalent to reprinting the piece without permission on the front page
>of the New York Times/London Daily Telegraph, etc.
>
>
>Message #2: LIBEL--  Some people have questioned the need for LACTNETters
to be careful about what they say when attempting to share their honest
opinions about
>products and services within the lactation consulting profession.  Please
>be aware of the definition of libel: "an untrue statement of fact about a
>person/product/service/company that will harm that
person/product/service/company."
>
>This means that if you know something to be untrue, it would be wise for
>you NOT to state said untrue statement on LACTNET. If you are reporting
actual experiences ***you have had***, not your LC friend, MD colleague,
etc...then , this information certainly can be shared within the bounds of
its being educational to other LCs and health professionals who assist
breastfeeding mothers.
>
>Keeping this  definition of libel in mind when you post should reduce the
>chance of suit of LACTNET subscribers to a minimum.
>
>You may ask why this is an issue being raised at this time.  Currently,
>legislation is before the US Congress (therefore potentially likely to
>affect the co-owners of LACTNET and its user source) that would markedly
>restrict what can be considered the "free exchange of ideas" via electronic
>media.  We are attempting to avoid problems in advance of that legislation
>so that we can also avoid problems should any one subscriber be taken to
>court (and we by association).
>
>Other options? If we were (following passage of the legislation) required
>to screen every posting for legitimacy/likelihood of generating libel suit,
>the list could be seriously affected,  because neither of the co-owners has the
>time or energy for this kind of behind-the-scenes work.

Thanks for reading this long note. Kathleen

Kathleen B. Bruce, BSN, IBCLC, LLLeader, co-owner Lactnet, LLLOL, Corgi-L
LACTNET WWW site: http://www.mcs.com/~auerbach/lactation.html
"Guilt: the gift that keeps on giving." Erma Bombeck