Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Alex de Kruijff]

On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 02:53:16PM -0500, Paul Schmehl wrote:
> --On Friday, May 06, 2005 08:48:14 PM +0200 Anthony Atkielski 
> <atkielski.anthony at wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> >
> >>So, if I *respond* to one of his posts (including his email address and
> >>at least a portion of what he wrote) and therefore have *some* of his
> >>"copyrighted" material in my post then he can request that *my* post be
> >>removed *without* my permission?
> >
> >Not if your backquoting falls within the scope of "fair use,"
> 
> Here's a webpage that makes your arguments laughable:
> <http://www.umuc.edu/distance/odell/cip/listserv.html>
> 
> It's a mailing list to discuss digital copyright.  Its archives are 
> searchable, and there's no requirement to agree to that when you subscribe.

So a site about copyrigth can not break the law? Just because something
happens doesn't mean this is legal.

> This one is even funnier:
> <http://www.copyright.gov/newsnet/>
> 
> Searchable archives going back to 1997.

Same remark as above.

> You *still* haven't provided *one* link to prove anything you've said.  On 
> the Internet, that's tantamount to an admission that you're blowing smoke.

So have you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Literary_and_Artistic_Works
http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html
http://www.google.com/search?q=BERNE+CONVENTION&sourceid=opera&num=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

He is legaly prity much correct in everything I have read.

It basicly comes down to this: You have copyrigth over everything you
write. This requires that one need to agree to a licence before others
can freely copy this to there sites.

> I doubt seriously your *extremely* strict interpretation of copyright would 
> hold up in any court of law in the US or anywhere else for that matter.  I 
> have no doubt that you could find a judge somewhere to rule in your favor. 
> After all, judges make incredibly stupid rulings daily.  But in the end, 
> your argument would fall on deaf ears when saner minds were engaged.
> 
> When you post to a public list, your post are not copyrighted material. 
> They exist in the public domain.  And *this* list *is* a public forum.

This is only true if the author agrees to this.

This is way shrink wrap licences exist. One can not clain the didn't
knew about this. They clearly had to posibilty to do so before accepting
the deal.

-- 
Alex

Please copy the original recipients, otherwise I may not read your reply.
WWW: http://www.kruijff.org/alex/FreeBSD/