Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

Ted Mittelstaedt tedm at toybox.placo.com
Sun May 8 14:35:50 PDT 2005



> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-freebsd-questions at freebsd.org
> [mailto:owner-freebsd-questions at freebsd.org]On Behalf Of Anthony
> Atkielski
> Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2005 1:58 AM
> To: freebsd-questions at freebsd.org
> Subject: Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!
>
>
> Ted Mittelstaedt writes:
>
> > No, Chris, we don't want to do that. If you put any kind of message
> > like that on the website you are then implying that the users have
> > copyrights in the first place on postings that they put on
> the mailing
> > list.
>
> It's better than being successfully sued or prosecuted for
> infringement.
>

The only list managers successfuly sued over this are the ones in your
dreams.

> There can be little doubt that posts are indeed protected by copyright,
> as they fall within the scope of materials that are so protected.

You are only claiming that they do.  US law does not specify that they
are nor does the Berne convention.

Maybe in another 50 years or so the next time the international copyright
convention meets and ratifies this then you might become correct - once
of course, that all the countries in the world sign off on the treaty
modifications.
But until then, you are just postulating.

The idea that a country would approve copyright rights that are far over
and
above Berne is preposterous - if they did so they would face retaliation
from
the rest of the world.  That is why Berne exists in the first place.

 The
> only question is the degree to which this copyright can be successfully
> enforced.  However, successful enforcement of a law isn't necessary to
> make the law valid, especially in torts.
>
> > Since what law there is supports the opposite assumption - that the
> > poster has no copyright on the post made in this forum - you are far
> > better legally by NOT putting such a disclaimer.
>
> Which law supports that?
>

I already posted.  Fair Use.  And, from Berne:

"...The protection of this Convention shall not apply to news of the day
or to miscellaneous facts..."

> > It is kind of like if you walk into a restaurant and pick up a fork
> > and stab yourself, then sue the restaurant claiming that they are
> > negligent in not warning you that their forks are sharp. Today you
> > don't see warning labels on forks because the law presumes
> that a fork
> > is supposed to be sharp, and it presumes that anyone of legal age to
> > enter a restaurant would know this.
>
> What is the minimum legal age to enter a restaurant?
>
> > If restaurants all started slapping warning labels on their
> forks then
> > they would create a presumption that a normal fork is dull, and that
> > the sharp kind is unexpected.
>
> Yes, but then they couldn't be sued successfully any more.
>

Sure they could, because someone would sue them claiming that their dull
fork slipped and as a result they suffered injury, and they should have
put
a warning label on the fork.

You, Anthony, apparently want to live in a world were you pick up a fork
and it either says:

"Warning: this fork is sharp and the user could suffer injury from it if
they stab themselves"

or

"Warning: this fork is dull and the user could suffer injury from it if
they slip while attempting to spear a piece of food and stab themselves"

And of course you want the warning in 15 different languages.

Thankfully, most people don't wish to live in this kind of world.

Ted



More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list