I am most interested in your reply.  I would appreciate a little more elaboration on what you mean
by "original research stolen" in the context of transmitting material over the net.  Paul's comments
appear to be arguing that transmission of parts or whole texts over the net will so reduce demand
that fewer books would be published.  My experience has been that most original research work has
been (long before the net came about) published via monographs, journals, highly specialized limited
issue books or booklets, etc. of one-time publication and in very small numbers.  It then is usually
only obtainable from someone else who is willing to share it or via a library.  If too much time has
not passed and you can contact the author, sometimes a copy can be obtained that way.  But, these
are otherwise not available in the market place in any practical sense (except maybe via resellers
of used books, which does not benefit the author in any event).  I always thought "stealing original
work" meant using another's ideas, research, writings, etc. and publishing it as one's own without
giving credit.  This can as easily be done by copying out of a document borrowed from a library as
gotten over the net.  How does transmitting material over the net from publications that are
otherwise unobtainable harm an author or publisher when the only other "legal or ethical" way to
obtain it would be via means that would not benefit them anyway (i.e. libraries, resellers,
borrowing)?
 
I also find it hard to believe that enough of the small and focused audience for the books of the
nature over which Paul has expressed his concern would have both the capability and preference for a
computer downloaded publication rather than the actual document.  I suspect that when you get down
to the real "hard core" affectionados like those on Conch-L who are the real market willing to spend
the bucks for original publications, availability on the net is not a factor.  It may be for those
of a marginal or dilettante interest who would not otherwise buy such books.  But the authors would
not benefit than, anyway.  There's always the argument that once someone sees something on the net
of which she may not otherwise have been aware or would not have been able to previewed, the
exposure would result in a sale not otherwise possible.  After all, exposure on the net is a form of
advertising.
 
Marlo
Florida
 
Douglas Nolen Shelton wrote:
 
> Paul Callomon,
>         Maybe CONCH-L rues the day you showed up, but I welcome your input.  As one
> that has had original research stolen in the past I certainly appreciate one's
> right to compensation for published work.  You certainly offer a perspective
> that I do not believe has been offered since I have been on CONCH-L.
>
> Doug Shelton
> Alabama Malacological Research Center
> 2370-G Hillcrest Road #236
> Mobile, AL 36695   USA