favor

[Bart Silverstrim]

On Feb 7, 2005, at 11:30 AM, Eric Kjeldergaard wrote:

>> EK> Let us make an analogue betwixt our Valerie and one who submits 
>> to the
>> EK> local newspaper.  There is a roughly equal level of consent given 
>> in
>> EK> both cases ...
>>
>> Not so, on two points: (1) the newspaper is obviously available to
>> anyone (it's on the newsstands), and not only to a selected group, and
>
> Not always so, I know of many newspapers that go to subscribers only
> (which local libraries are often among).  This is especially true of
> places without newstands.

Given that the it is rather common sense that the Internet has a long 
memory about things, and that this is a mailing list going out to any 
wazoo who subscribes, and that there are archives that are known to 
exist by anyone who bothers to take a few moments to look at what 
they're getting into by posting, and that people have been quoted and 
quoted and quoted so many times from the previous posts that it would 
be nearly impossible to purge a person's entire transcript from each 
and every message out there in which it's been quoted short of an EM 
burst that would wipe out every computers' hard drive on the planet, as 
well as the difficulty in getting copyright agreements to stick equally 
to me, you, and Ichabod in the country of Elbonia, wouldn't it make 
sense just to say, "If you don't want it known to everyone, encrypt 
it...if you want people's help, post it in cleartext, and risk it 
forever quoting the fact that you were at some point ignorant of a 
subject and asking for help"?

I mean, how many people have even touched on the subject of "copyright 
infringment" by the fact that I am quoting two other people in this 
message, and this is something done CONSTANTLY with hundreds of 
thousands of messages out there?  You give consent by letting your 
words fly out there.  You sent it, I got it, don't want me to read it, 
shoulda' encrypted it or not sent it at all.

c'mon...sending to a mailing list where there are little if any 
safeguards to restrict access kinda' should imply that you're giving 
consent for others to get the messages and may reproduce it.  Hell, if 
anything, it's a safeguard.  I've seen some people on Usenet that have 
used the Google cache to point out where someone twisted or altered 
quoting of their original messages so the fact that it's archived and 
mirrored *helped* them prove they said what they claimed.