Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Danny Pansters]

On Saturday 07 May 2005 04:52, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
> 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.

Now you lump me into some self defined "geek community". Apparently I don't 
respect the rule of law now. Isn't that slander? Or perhaps you can read 
minds (me and others) that'll go well in court.

By extension that also includes the people that make and sustain FreeBSD. Nice 
way to commend them.

> > 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.

So the answer is DUNNO thank you.

> > 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.

How else are generally broadcasted text messages covered then? Elaborate 
please. Perhaps make distinctions per media if appropriate.

>
> > 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.

Yes but it already pretty much does IMHO. Perhaps it could be stated more 
absolutely.


> > 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.

No, they don't care about their major corps who make up mosty of the gross 
turnover each year. Sure. Mostly they're government subsedaries even so.

In can elaborate in length about the nuclear/reprocessing industry in France 
and how private and gubernational forces are tied but you'd dismiss it as a 
special case anyhow.

> > What else?
>
> The public interest is a strong motivator, and the need to maintain
> order.

Which means that FreeBSD's openness is somehow at fault?

> > 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.

Sure.

> > Yeah about me legally marrying my male partner or not.
>
> Marriage is not relevant to the question under discussion.

Neither is much of what you tend to bring in either. *That* was the whole 
point honey :)

> > 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.

So don't claim it is conclusive. It is void. Void. Void.

> > 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 were the one talking about superimposing DMCA upon your national laws.

> > 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.

Yes, but perhaps not all, or not even most. Someone who can read code can also 
read legalese.

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

Aha.

> > 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.

... ok ...

> > 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.

It won't be me anyhow (if applying your ethics).


Cheers,

Dan