Theos-Talk Archives (April 2003 Message tt00079)

In a message dated 04/15/03 5:05:19 PM, bartl@sprynet.com writes:

>leonmaurer@aol.com wrote:
>> 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.)
>
> BART: That is sending someone something in private. There is a major 
>difference between that and posting on a public list.

In most cases I would agree with that -- but there could be exceptions -- 
especially when all parties referred to in the correspondence are on both 
public lists, or the subject of discussion is the same. 

>> 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?
>
> BART: What if it isn't a public forum accessible by anyone? For example, 
>theos-l is NOT such a list.

But it IS, since anyone can freely register and sign up to read everyone's 
mail. It's archive is in the nature of a bulletin board that can be posted 
on or read by anyone.

> BART: Television programs are publicly broadcast and available to anyone. 
If
>someone makes a commentary on a news show, are you allowed to freely 
>copy, reprint, and distribute that person's commentary?

No, not without permission from the copyright holder. In such a case that 
property is owned by the station. But, we certainly can quote any news 
correspondent within the context of our own public speaking, publications, or 
correspondence. Whatever one hears or reads can be directly quoted provided 
suitable author recognition is given. 

>> Public information is public information. 
>
> BART: There is a difference between information available to the public 
and
>public domain.

Agreed. "Public Domain" information cannot be copyrighted. But, if we want 
to nitpick, there is a difference between public information, and information 
made public. 

LHM

> Bart Lidofsky