To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org> Subject: [WSFA] Re: Capclave From: shofmann at mindspring.com (Scott Hofmann) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 14:41:37 -0400 Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org> >>>>> "TW" == Ted White <twhite8 at cox.net> writes: >> "Ted White" <twhite8 at cox.net> wrote: >> >> >> You missed an excellent con. >> TW> Really? By what standards? I heard a lot of complaints. TW> One important change should be the Program Book (or booklet). I know Jim TW> has a lot of other things on his mind, and maybe didn't have the time -- TW> and I'd glad this year's was better than last year's, which didn't have TW> space for my piece on Phil Klass (I gave him a printed-out copy of the TW> piece, for which he thanked me) -- but attention has to be paid to small TW> details, like copyright notices. Any time we publish a piece of fiction TW> (by the GoH or anyone else), it should carry either a current copyright TW> notice, or, if it's a reprint, the original copyright notice. A failure to TW> do this has legal consequences and just makes WSFA/Capclave look bad. As other people have pointed out, a copyright notice is NOT REQUIRED for a copyrighted piece to have copyright protection. TW> Beyond that, it's inexplicable that any modern, computer-typeset TW> publication should be set in Courier and look typewriter-written. Not only TW> is it space-wasteful, it looks cheaper and sloppier. And I really could TW> have used a table of contents in the booklet. Plus, there is no reason to TW> call announcements "Errata," which they were not. I thought our programming book looked good given the resources of our convention. Certainly Jim chose a rather informal style for the book, but then we're a rather informal convention. If you would like things to have a different look then you're certainly welcome to do publications for a future Capclave, or make suggestions to the publications committee of those cons. scott -- J. Scott Hofmann http://www.kniggets.org shofmann at mindspring.com