keith said:
>   I do understand how these people can be rogue!
>   They are in your own opinion
>   are not doing anything illegal or unethical.

here in america, the term "rogue" is en vogue these days;
the republican nitwits even use it to describe themselves.

we probably should reserve the word for true criminals,
but then again, these republican nitwits are aiding and
abetting the bankers, who are truly rogue criminals, so
maybe it's not so far-fetched of a term after all, ya know?

i'm using it mainly to acknowledge that some people here
have tried to paint these republishers as doing some evil...

but they haven't done anything illegal, as everyone agrees.

and the argument about "unethical" hasn't really been made
in a conscious way that can be fairly debated.  mostly it relies
on the subconscious feeling that the volunteers should have
some degree of control over how their work is being used, but
-- as understandable as that might be -- it just doesn't apply,
because that public-domain base content belongs to everyone.

if i grow flowers in a public place, someone will come along and
pick them, and if that bothers me, hey, that's just my tough luck.

but let me be absolutely clear that i don't like these republishers
one bit.  they are clearly taking advantage of a certain situation,
and i firmly believe that we should find a way of stopping them.

lucky for us, there's a very simple way.  beat them to the punch.

pick the flowers before the other guys, and sell them yourself.
the public would much rather buy them from the people who
grew 'em, rather than the guys who just went and picked 'em.
give the public the chance to do the right thing, and they will...

-bowerbird