favor

[Anthony Atkielski]

Joshua Tinnin writes:

JT> What contract is implied here?

When a person subscribes to a list in exchange for receiving mail from
the list.

JT> Is this what has happened here? Has the OP's ability to pay rent
JT> been damaged by her archived post?

I don't know.  It's easy to conceive of plausible scenarios in which it
would be.

JT> If the OP's copyright to her post is infringed by archiving that
JT> post, then what, exactly, are the damages?

See above.

JT> No, Fair Use is more of an aspect of copyright law. No "quirk" is
JT> going to affect the nature of copyright to that extent.

It's an idiosyncrasy of U.S. copyright law, although it has some
parallels in some other countries.  It provides for only a handful of
exceptions to a general rule.

JT> How do you suggest this list and all others like it deal with this
JT> matter, in practical terms?

Require members of the list to explicitly agree to archiving terms as a
condition of their subscription, or delete the archives.

JT> Don't suggest hiring lawyers, as that's hardly practical.

If a list owner gets sued, there may be no choice.

JT> What are the practical effects of a lawsuit?

Bankruptcy, in many cases, for the losing party.  That may be the result
even before it goes to trial.

JT> What damages would be sought, and under what pretense?

Statutory, compensatory, and punitive damages, IIRC, depending on
circumstances.  Injunctive relief also.

-- 
Anthony