Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

Danny Pansters danny at ricin.com
Fri May 6 18:36:47 PDT 2005


On Saturday 07 May 2005 02:42, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
> Danny Pansters writes:
> > Which shows how bad cratic souvereign counties are gettingthey're
> > accepting US corp law as their own.

> Copyright law is fairly consistent in the industrialized world.

Yeah it's also remarkably about (perceived) profit and not about personal 
expression (at all). Copyright has nothing to do with freedom of expression 
although they're often linked (by the wrong parties usually).

So I'm longing for a number (amount) to slap on this then we can compare notes 
proper. Got one?

> > Anyway, stuff your DMCA.. until we have a valid precedent for it I'd say
> > stuff it.
>
> There's already a lot of jurisprudence to draw upon.

No not on general textual copyright and certainly not on casually (re)produced 
text in a context where one can expect it to be reused even being told it 
will be. Got one?

DMCA is more about patents than about copyrights anyway (both ways it is bad, 
if only because corporate protection doesnt belong in criminal justice, heck 
it doesnt even belong in private (as in persons) justice to begin with, it 
should be the outer peel not the inner, but well, welcome to 1985). But 
nowadays corporations are the only legal entities fulkly enjoying "freedom" 
as written down and meant for individuals. But I digress.

You're the one who is confused by copyright vs patents and all. Copyright 
occurs automatically on everything you write or do or create (if your time 
hasn't been contractully bought by your employer, talk about slavery) but it 
is about redistribution.

And redistribution becomes relevant if any gain or profit is involved. 
Personal comments on mailinglists hardly apply. Of course if you make a piece 
of software or for example make a poem and publish it through a public 
mailing list you might have some merit, but I'd think that tha charter for 
that mailing list alone qualifies as a no-no for that. After all you know 
what you're going into. Besides a "work" such as a piece of software or a 
poem should have a license covering (maybe) use (end use license) and 
(copyright) redistribution. Neither takes away the default reasoning that 
seems appropriate when posting to a public and archived forum. Unless OP 
slaps a license on her postings it's all moot and considered public domain.

Perhaps our mailing lists when you enter it or log on via the web pages should 
have a public domain or BSD or else if named policy laid out right there 
which applies to postings, especially when people sign up. That way we can 
avoid this babble which comes up ever so often.

> > What if it's the US DMCA against a big French software house (assuming
> > you have one). How would you think your gov would react?
>
> I suppose my government would either apply French copyright law if the
> infringement were in France, or U.S. copyright law (i.e., the DMCA) if
> the infringement were in the U.S.

They'd choose the option that makes the most profit, you fool. What else?

And I reckon they never be in disagreement because they can freely decide 
which law to use? Broken system only beneficial to US/F authorities and 
multinationals it seems. But hey if you're happy with that... very 
democratic.

> > Now go back to someone complaining about their want-on sent messages
> > being archived... yeah sure they would cave in. Dream on.
>
> It's surprising what courts care about sometimes.

Yeah about me legally marrying my male partner or not. That's the level the 
courts are at today. Let's leave (court) politics alone, both you and I have 
a reasonable idea about what is accepted in and what isn't. I'm in Holland 
and France isn't that different (in many cases better). The US however is a 
different ballgame and not one to be proud of to defend.

>
> > And besides as other people have pointed out in the realm of cyberspace
> > once you post something willingly, it's impossible to retain it and any
> > perceived profit that would have been generated by it (yes, the court
> > will ask about this loss of profit). It's a loosing shipwreck trying to
> > go to court for that.
>
> You can still obtain relief in various forms.

You need relief not me, and hopefully it will stay that way.

> > It may just end up as what most people would expect: considered "fair
> > use" ...
>
> I'm not aware of any cases in which reproduction of an entire work has
> been held to be fair use; fair use is usually interpreted pretty
> narrowly.

Well, your awareness luckily isn't any measure.

> > ... and if it doesn't it's going to loose over technicalities alone, like
> > when you answer back quoting the original message. Were you breaking
> > copyrights?
>
> That's not a technicality, nor is it relevant to the main question.

So that's why you don't go into it I guess.

> > No judge is going to do that dance, not even in the crazy paranoid
> > corporate stronghold culture we live in these days. Forget it.
>
> You don't know what a judge will do until you're in court.
>
> > Still... would the OP please try to sue so that we get a nice
> > jurisdiction about this. Rather now than later.
>
> Be careful what you wish for.

Oh no, I want it now rather than later. Later will be worse even if with less 
merit. Will you, as you argue so strongly in favor? By all means, do it. It's 
much better than the (admitted) uncertainty we're in now over lots of legal 
subjects.

The BSD way is clarity first, so we would benifit even if it would be a short 
term regression. Let OP sue and pay for the procedures, that would be nice.

Greets,

Dan


More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list