Re: "Providing content" vs "writing"

["Dick Margulis " <margulis -at- mail -dot- fiam -dot- net>]

Seems to me that the phrase "content provider" may have come about as a result of the long rancorous debate about royalties for archival articles that newspapers and others started putting online. My suspicion is that some lawyer decided if you call someone a content provider instead of a writer or artist, you can make a cleaner argument for having bought a product (the content) outright and therefore being able to do with it whatever you want without paying for it in perpetuity (in the form of royalties).

Steven Brown wrote:

>Given the nature of prior discussions within this
>group, and at the extreme risk of being a muckraker,
>I'll answer your question with another question:
>
>  Must one be a writer to be a content provider?
>


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Collect Royalties, Not Rejection Letters! Tell us your rejection story when you 
submit your manuscript to iUniverse Nov. 6 -Dec. 15 and get five free copies of 
your book. What are you waiting for? http://www.iuniverse.com/media/techwr

Have you looked at the new content on TECHWR-L lately?
See http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ and check it out.

---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as: archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot-  Visit 
http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.