Theos-Talk Archives (April 2003 Message tt00061)

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.

>

> 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.  

LHM: Please, no need to take what I said personally. The statement referred 
back to the person Etzion was talking about who complained in the first 
place. I argued against the idea that there was a "crime" committed by 
anyone. Unless its a crime to keep open crossed lines of pertinent 
information, and clarify misinterpretation. In that case I'm the one that's 
guilty. Sometimes, someone makes reference to people on another list.  
Shouldn't those people, and anyone else privy to the conversation, get a 
carbon of the response? (Putting the separate question of "cross posting" 
aside.)


> 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.

LHM: What's private about public disclosure? What's the law for reprinting 
someone's letter written in a public forum that can be accessed by anyone?  
Public information is public information. The law only applies to "wrongful 
use." However, quoting someone is considered "fair use." (Especially if the 
correspondence is directed to a question you asked in several different open 
groups with crossover membership.) Besides, this case does not refer to 
cross posting, but is about someone objecting to being quoted in a letter 
directed to me.


> 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.

LHM: Just because you say so doesn't make it so. But, you are right, if you 
object to the use of the word "solely." My error. To clarify; All writings 
are automatically copyrighted, and are subject to law if they are reproduced 
for commercial or unfair use. The only recompense for such an offense is 
monetary. That's civil, not criminal law. Therefore, there cannot be any 
crime committed in any case, since quoting letters in context, along with 
credit to the writer, is considered "fair use." The only restriction for 
private use, is if the author specifically states that permission is required 
for quotation or reproduction. That usually applies to literature. But, 
public postings on a bulletin board or mail list (that quotes others who are 
engaged in an ongoing public dialogue with the writer) is quite a different 
matter. There is no legal recourse for such action and therefore, there is no 
offense. But even if there were, sometimes risking a lawsuit may be worth it 
in the interests of truth or justice. ("The spirit of the law sometimes must 
take precedence over the letter of the law" - Tom Jefferson)


> 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.

LHM: Such moral precepts depend on the use that the material was reproduced 
for. In any case, if it was to expose a slander, or to pass on "public 
domain" information, or allow others involved in a controversy to review the 
material -- the moral precepts have no bearing. In any event, quoting an 
open letter in another open letter does not fall under the copyright laws.  
If you think so, quote the appropriate section of that law that applies to 
such a case.  


> 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).

LHM: OK. Such actions are deplorable. As is, someone responding to my letter 
in this forum where my quoted words were taken out of context to 
intentionally distort their meaning.  
But that's a personal case and has no bearing on the present case under 
discussion. But, what's that got to do with law? It may be a moral crime 
(substitute shame) for someone to do that to you, but what does the criminal 
or civil laws have to do with it?

> If one is telling the truth, and not slandering 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.

LHM: I didn't say it wasn't harmless. But, simply, that there was no crime 
committed, moral, civil, or criminal -- in that case or in the present case 
that Etzion and I were commenting on. In your case, cross posting is a moral 
question, for which you are in the right -- since you did specifically 
request that party not to do that. The fact that you were misquoted, or taken 
out of context, is another violation of trust that is purely an ethical 
matter.


http://www.ivanhoffman.com/rights.html

http://www.fplc.edu/tfield/copynet.htm

LHM: Maybe you should read the above information very carefully. You will 
note that, in certain cases, such as, if one writes a letter quoting an 
extract of someone else's writings, in context, with proper citation 
(doctrine of "fair use") -- there is no copyright violation. That letter can 
then be sent or posted by the writer, anywhere (addressed to anyone, or any 
group) without violation of anyone's legal rights. 


LHM

Bart Lidofsky