Re: The Economist and e-Archiving

["John Cox" <John.E.Cox@btinternet.com>]

Surely this means that an item that was unlawful and never should have
been published in the first place is simply "unpublished".  Aren't we
making mountains out of molehills in connection with this type of
publication.  I see the point in relation to the peer-reviewed scholarly
record, but not in relation to a weekly magazine online.  If we asked an
archivist - and archivists are good at knowing what and what not to
preserve - this one might well end up on the disposal list.

But then I'm only a simple country boy...

John Cox

John Cox Associates
Rookwood, Bradden
TOWCESTER, Northants NN12 8ED
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0) 1327 860949
Fax: +44 (0) 1327 861184
E-mail: John.E.Cox@btinternet.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "Hamaker, Chuck" <cahamake@email.uncc.edu>
To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
Sent: 18 June 2003 12:00 am
Subject: RE: The Economist and e-Archiving

> So I guess this means the winner re-writes history ?Or maybe just deletes
> the facts. Sounds like each and every country will have to write its own
> laws to protect the continued existence of what was published.
>
> Why should the French courts be able to tell a UK publication to delete?
>
> Why would the EU want its own history deletable?
>
> I won but you can't see why I won? Or I won and you will be erased from
> history? Will our cultural patrimony disappear under the guise of legal
> rulings from around the world...?
>
> Chuck
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ann Okerson
> To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
> Sent: 6/16/03 8:45 PM
> Subject: The Economist and e-Archiving
>
> Readers of this list may be interested in another example of withdrawal
> from an e-archive, from the June 7th issue of The Economist, p. 67:
>
> ***
>
> In LARGE BOLD letters occuping about the bottom 1/4 of the page:
>
> "In a judgment dated May 23rd 2003, the section of the criminal court of
> Paris dealing with media condemned Mr Emmott, editor-in-chief of a weekly,
> The Economist, for having defamed publicly Credit Lyonnais and its
> chairman, Monsiur Peyrelevade, by publishing, in the edition of May
> 19th-25th 2001, an article on pages 82 and 83 entitled "The scandal
> continues" and a cover line "Credit Lyonnais, new revelations", which
> implicated the bank and M. Peyrelevade."
>
> Then, in a very small font at the bottom of the page:
>
> "Editors note:  This statement is published by order of the French court.
> Mr. Peyrelevade brought two writs for defamation against me: the first,
> for two articles on January 13th 2001, "A new scandal at Credit Lyonnais"
> and "The curse continues," was rejected.  The above verdict, for our third
> article, also awarded damages of Euro-3,000 ($3384) to each of Mr.
> Peyrelevade and Credit Lyonnais, and Euro-1,500 in costs.  In view of the
> ruling, the article "The scandal continues" has been removed from our
> online archive.  The first two articles remain there, as do a fourth
> article, "Management by committee" (July 14th 2001) and a fifth,
> "Questions, questions" (July 13th 2002), in respect of which Mr.
> Peyrelevade has not sued."
>
> --end--