The misconception of 'ownership' of informationArchived Message
Posted by ErikS on January 25, 2012, 9:51 am, in reply to "Henri M. !"
Regardless of the question whether information was shared with or without consent, I notice a tendency with experts to protect their information as if it were their own.
There is no such thing as 'ownership' of information, well, maybe in literary works like Alice in Wonderland or 1984.
If there were to be any proprietor of information regarding the royal jewels of the Netherlands, it will be the owner of the heirlooms, which is not the expert in question, who gets his or her information elsewhere as well. Also, this knowledge often is published without stating the source (which is common practice and not contrary to journalistic principles either).
On this board we are not discussing our own property, our own family history, our own products and the knowledge in this case is not the result of endless hours of our own archival academic work.
The information Henri gave might as well be from a different expert (more people in the Netherlands have 'privileged' information about the jewels) and the conclusion the bracelet can be reconstructed is one that anyone with some knowledge of jewellery could draw based upon the images available.
Proprietary information does exist, as well as copyright. But in order for information to be proprietary, it has to be patented or agreed to be confident. Since none is the case here, and no copyright has been infringed, words like information being 'abused' are very much out of place and proportion.
--Previous Message-- : I object strongly here to the fact that you're : not mentioning which royal jewel expert : told you these details !! : I have just received an @mail from the Dutch : author/journalist whose knowledge you used : (abused) on this Board and who was appalled : to see that the person who asked her for : some details earlier on, used these very : same facts now, on this Board, but now was : suddenly using the name of Henri M. : : If thàt is not violating the most important : rules of these Boards, then I don't know : what is ! : : It would be better if you apologise openly : to the person whose knowledge you abused and : whom you misled by using a different name : when asking information per e-mail ! : : Meanwhile, all of this has now led to the : website of said well-known royal : author/journalist being closed for any : further questions/mails from jewel-lovers as : she no longer wants to share her information : with anybody. : Thus the good guys suffer from the behaviour : of the bad guys. : As usual : : And I am sorry if I don't express myself in : a kind or diplomatical way here, but right : now I am really furious seeing that the good : name of this wonderful Board has been : downgraded by such loathsome behaviour! : : : :
on January 25, 2012, 9:51 am, in reply to "