

Can we have some first sources, please? - timf
http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2010/01/18/can-we-have-some-first-sources-please/

======
JacobAldridge
Maybe I'm reading between the lines too much, but this seems to be creating a
problem by being overly-general.

Certainly, if you discuss or analyse an article or document which is available
online, link to it for the benefit of your audience (and the original author).
(Exceptions like discussing a hate crimes page and not wanting to give it
google-juice are fine, just let us know you're doing it.)

But the OP seems to blur this with other sources not already available on the
web (or, presumably for example, behind a paywall). Are you asking for these
to be uploaded, which is potentially copyright infringement and at least may
go against the original author's intent?

If I review a book, do you need the primary source included?

~~~
russell
Jacob, I think you are reading more into it than he said. As far as I can see,
he said, if you find it online give a link to it. He didn't even go so far as
to ask for a citation if it's not on line.

~~~
Locke1689
Who says that that piece by Nate Anderson was available online? Very often
case law is only accessible by pay-for subscriptions.

~~~
streety
IANAL but I don't think that applies here. He links to what is essentially a
spam submission in the first paragraph so it seems reasonable to expect the
other submissions will also be available.

