Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Anthony Atkielski]

Danny Pansters writes:

> 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).

Whatever the motivations behind it, it is still the law.  I know that
the geek community likes to affect a total disregard for the rule of
law, but the rest of the world is fortunately not so inclined.

> 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?

Nothing comes immediately to mind.  A domain without established
precedents is always dangerous ground.

> DMCA is more about patents than about copyrights anyway ...

The DMCA has nothing to do with patents.  Patents are distinct from
copyrights.

> Unless OP slaps a license on her postings it's all moot and considered
> public domain.

No, it is not; this is a very prevalent misconception.

> 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.

It would be simple enough to require that subscribers agree to public
archives or other conditions as a prerequisite to joining a list.

> They'd choose the option that makes the most profit, you fool.

The government does not stand to profit in these cases, whatever the
decision taken.

> What else?

The public interest is a strong motivator, and the need to maintain
order.

> 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.

I'm afraid I don't understand many of your comments.

> Yeah about me legally marrying my male partner or not.

Marriage is not relevant to the question under discussion.

> Let's leave (court) politics alone, both you and I have a reasonable
> idea about what is accepted in and what isn't.

Not necessarily.  As you have already implied, specific jurisprudence in
this domain is lacking, although there are precedents in related
situations.

> I'm in Holland and France isn't that different (in many cases better).

As far as I know, the FreeBSD organization is based in the U.S., so
Holland and France are irrelevant.

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

I didn't have anyone specific in mind.

> Well, your awareness luckily isn't any measure.

I am better informed than most in this domain.

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

Correct.

> 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.

I don't understand this, either.

> 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.

It's not nice when you're the party that has to pay damages.

-- 
Anthony