Daniel Ivanick [26 Feb 96] points out the difference between the intent of copyright law and how people interpret it. I agree fully with what he said. Different groups (publishers, teachers) interpret the law to better suit their needs. The fair use provision is rather vague. Many lawyers say that the only way to test it for any particular purpose is to go to court. (Of course, that is a pretty self-serving claim.)
Daniel also points out, correctly, that copyright law is intended to protect the expression of an idea, not the idea. But people try to bend even that to their advantage. Haven't software publishers tried to stretch that distinction when they make "look and feel" claims about their software?
As for whether publishers already serve as clearinghouses, I guess I did not express myself well enough. Yes, publishers do provide a type of clearinghouse for writers to profit from their work. They are for-profit clearinghouses. I would also like to see NON-profit clearinghouses which take advantage of Internet distribution to hold down costs. The publishers of some research journals charge such incredibly high fees for their journals that research libraries are finding it impossible to continue subscriptions. And it is the faculty of those same institutions that write many of the articles in those journals. There is a growing movement among research universities to start non-profit journals themselves to eliminate the expensive middlemen.
Steve Tripp [27 Feb 96] added some useful information about linguistics. Yes, Steve, I am aware of the complexity even of transcription. Transcribing NATURALLY spoken language (especially at the rate I speak it) is very difficult. But great progress HAS been made with computers that take dictation if you speak slowly, and clearly, and train the device to your voice. That is what I had in mind. Yes, I'm sure that even then, some comprehension is necessary for good transcription. I'm confident that computer scientists will also make progress on machine understanding of language.
You are right that in the recent Deep Blue chess match, the IBM computer Deep Blue lost the MATCH to a grand master. I think you were a bit crafty in not pointing out that Deep Blue DID win ONE of the games. Not too many years ago, chess players said even THAT would never happen.
I'll accept your proposition that a larger proportion of the world is multilingual than I implied. But does that change my point? Suppose a person knows English, Chinese, and Indonesian. Will that help them if they are traveling in southern Mexico? You can know a dozen languages, but there are still countries where you would have difficulty communicating and books you cannot read. What IS my point you ask? When language translators become available, most people (even multilingual people) will be DELIGHTED to use them rather than learn new languages that they do not already know. Yes, communicating through a translator may be a slow and painful process, but learning new languages (as an adult) is even slower.