[Cosmo-torun] Re: [Cosmo-media] the shape of the universe (fwd)

Andrzej Marecki amr w astro.uni.torun.pl
Pon, 20 Lut 2006, 10:16:44 CET

> Here's an attempt to summarise the ethics arguments/counterarguments
> for/against giving an answer:
> 4 (utilitarian argument) the "politically correct" side of axel springer
> (newsweek) is much more likely to be taken seriously and have an effect on
> CAUMK funding (e.g. grants) than RM would have (though this is not totally
> sure)

OK, but how can you make sure Axel Springer will NOT reprint your opinion in
Fakt??? If you talk to them you then - AFAIK - _they_ own the copyright to
distribute your opinions in the way *they* wish. Can you image the 1st page
of Fakt with headlines "The Universe is a funnel" next to "This is the face
of a rapist. She says she will never forget it" (or any other rubbish like 
that)? I can.

So if you decide to reply to Mr. Rożek then before you actually reply to his
questions ask him who are you talking to: Newsweek or Axel Springer? If the
latter is the case then there *is* a danger your words may be misused. If
the former is the case then ask whether you can get PROTECTED (in writing!)
that your words will NOT appear in Fakt, Popcorn, Dziwczyna or any other
pitiful, bull...tting crap owned by Axel Springer. Having a document stating
that Axel Springer _limits_ their copyrights, you perhaps may start talking
to them. Then if your words/photo appears in Fakt anyway, you could try to 
sue them.

> 1  our answer provides a "legitimate" cover for an organisation which as a whole
> plays many negative roles in information distribution

"Yes, yes, yes." (I put quotes because I'm quoting... Prime Minister 
Marcinkiewicz here. ;-)

> Is this a fair summary of the arguments?



Więcej informacji o liście Cosmo-torun