Barry Popik in WSJ

[Paul McFedries]

> On behalf of non-subscribers everywhere, thanks very much for posting
> the article

The WSJ copyright statement accompanying that article states that
"reproduction or redistribution of WSJ.com
content requires permission from us." I would have thought that scholars
(which seem to form the bulk of this list's membership) would be acutely
aware of copyright concerns and embarrassed (not glad) to see such an
obvious (albeit minor) violation. My views of copyright may be old-fashioned
in the Internet age, but I honestly believe that if we turn a blind eye to
(or, worse, actively encourage) these smaller copyright infringements, then
eventually larger acts of intellectual theft won't seem all that bad. And
when that day comes, this being one of the slipperier of slopes, it surely
won't be long before the whole notion of intellectual property is toast.

Sorry for the off-topic soapboxian rant, but (as you've no doubt guessed)
we're into Pet Peeve territory here.

Paul