Theos-Talk Archives (April 2003 Message tt00058)

leonmaurer@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 04/12/03 9:08:04 AM, bartl@sprynet.com writes:
> > Emails carry an implied copyright by the writer. A forum carrying
> > an email has what is called a "compilation copyright", allowing
> > them to transmit that email to others on the list. But NOBODY has
> > the right to take that email and transmit it elsewhere, unless the
> > agreement they made in joining the list says otherwise.
> >
> > Now, in practice, you are not likely to get sued for doing so. But
> > getting away with a crime doesn't make it any less of a crime.
> More Bullcrap.
>
> There is no crime. In this case, it's like the pan calling the kettle
> black.
Please use clichés properly. Your statement implies that I am guilty of 
even worse things. If I am wrong, please state what I am guilty of that 
is worse than copyright violation.

> Privacy is one thing, Public correspondence is another. It's
> not a question of law in these circumstances.
It is most definitely a question of law.

> Copyright laws are
> solely for the purpose of protecting an author or artist against
> commercial use of their intellectual properties (which have to be
> protected by legally filed and issued copyrights or patents).
Nope.

> Therefore, any documents not written for the purpose of commercial
> sale, or marked "confidential" for a limited group, in the interests
> of trade or government secrecy, are exempt from any copyright laws or
> moral precepts.
Moral precepts, possibly. Copyright laws, no.

> information that concerns them. Cross posting in such cases is not
> even an ethical problem. Besides, when it comes to spiritual
> teachings or public debate, there are no rules.
Except that one can change the message very easily through partial 
quoting. As you well know, I have had messages of mine quoted in other 
forums where, although the quotes were technically accurate, the editing 
radically changed what I was saying (for example, once when I wrote a 
message showing the thinking of Jew haters, and it was quoted in another 
forum as if it was my own thinking).

> If one is telling the truth, and not slanderiing others,
> what's there to hide or be afraid of? Public access implies public
> domain, and may be reproduced, unless the material is legally
> copyrighted.
Because quotes taken out of context can have very different meanings. 
Because if a list is not available to the public, a message left on that 
list carries a reasonable promise of privacy. I had a hell of a time 
once because a message sent on a private list that contained a private 
email address that was supposed to be bcc'd, but was cc'd by accident. 
That, alone, would not have caused a problem, but the message was quoted 
by someone else on a public list, email list and all, and the list was 
publicly archived, so now the email address was available to public 
search engines. I, and others, had to go through a lot of trouble fixing 
the situation, and, thanks to the person who cross-posted (whom I had 
specifically asked many times never to crosspost my messages), a typo 
caused me to lose the trust of a good friend.

So don't tell me that it's harmless.

http://www.ivanhoffman.com/rights.html
http://www.fplc.edu/tfield/copynet.htm

Bart Lidofsky