I think the main force of this whole story is whether it is legal, given Slashdot's very visible assertion that the comments are owned by whoever posted them. I don't frequent ASP messageboards and listservs, so I don't know what their policies are, but I suspect it's something similar.
It's very likely some archives prefer "We own this site and everything here, but the opinions expressed by our visitors do not reflect those of company management" over "We own only the infrastructure, visitors retain ownership of their posts, and (implicitly) grant the right to display them on this web site." A company that opts for the former can legally publish excerpts or the entire archive at their will; Slashdot/Andover (which chose the latter), probably should not have done so. [aside: Curiously, the message board on your site seems to have neither statement, although you do allow other articles on your site to be copied without your consent (except to other web sites)].
Even with that, there is still the idea of fair use, which basically acknowledges that you are allowed to reprint someone else's words, in reasonably small chunks, if you're discussing them in your own words nearby. The potential violation comes when you and the copyright holder disagree about how much a reasonable amount is, in relation to both your work and theirs. There may be some legal rules-of-thumb (I am not, nor have I ever been, a member of the American Bar Association), but I'm sure it's a very fuzzy boundary.
The plagiarism part is the easiest to avoid. Where a copyright violation is printing something you don't have permission to (outside the constructs of fair use), plagiarism is claiming that you wrote it to begin with. It would be sloppy and even tacky to include them in a reference or teaching book (except possibly those from some authoritative source, like MS' lead engineer on the ASP module of IIS), but you could, as long as you constrain yourself to a few illustrative examples and preface them with something like "Here are some good questions that appeared in [whichever message board or mailing list], and were answered by [What's-his-name], the author of the part of the server that deals with [whatever]:". It's not how I'd write a book, but it's clearly attributed as being from somewhere else, written by someone else. Therefore, it's not plagiarized. Period. I've still not seen the book in question, but I'll give even Jon Katz that much credit in advance.
As to the morality of it, I think that can't be generalized. It is possible to be morally wrong and legally right, and vice versa, especially around a topic so charged with strong emotions (Columbine, that is, not ASP). I think it would be morally wrong to print an archive of the message board at 4GuysFromRolla.com, but there's nothing to indicate I'd be legally liable (hint: fix that). On the other hand, I agree with the backers of the Hellmouth project that it is important for the good of society for many of those stories to be told, but I think they had an obligation (legal in general and moral to specific authors) to make a better effort to seek consent than they made.
Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men. —MLK
$email =~ s/0/o/; # The K5 cabal is out to get you.
[ Parent ]