Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 08:42:19 -0400 From: Bart Silverstrim <bsilver@chrononomicon.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE! Message-ID: <9defd00d965ba7f897841f547ee9ed4f@chrononomicon.com> In-Reply-To: <1997311903.20050506130845@wanadoo.fr> References: <20050506105722.099954BEAD@ws1-1.us4.outblaze.com> <1997311903.20050506130845@wanadoo.fr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On May 6, 2005, at 7:08 AM, Anthony Atkielski wrote: > Fafa Hafiz Krantz writes: > >> What if ones life is at risk? > > As I've said, send a DMCA to the owner of the archive (and to other > parties if they have copies). If they don't take down the infringing > material, you can sue. If their ISPs don't cooperate, you can sue them > as well. Yup. Sue the mailing list archive, sue the ISPs, sue the list members...after all, they could have saved the information in their email client. Oh, and sue Google too. Who do you sue if you write a letter to the editor of a newspaper, they publish it, then you decide you want to take back what you wrote? When you post to a public mailing list, there is no more expectation of privacy than you have walking down a public sidewalk. You made the decision to make your words public. Good luck taking them back, Sparky. >> There should be a law protecting users against this. > > There is: copyright law. But most technical geeks don't know much > about > it, so they try to pretend that it doesn't exist. Bull. It's a very important issue for "geeks", especially with various open source factions starting to get into court disputes over licensing. The ones who pretend there are no copyright laws are the people who pirate materials off the Internet, and the majority of them aren't "technical geeks". Here's some info that seems to show that your archived messages are covered by copyright...but the archives are deemed FAIR USE: ********** Licenses implied by circumstances. Fair use is a legal license conferred by the statute. However, licenses may also be implied by context. Writers who post messages to public e-mail lists should contemplate, for example, both forwarding and archiving. It is reasonable to assume that they have given permission unless it is explicitly denied. One Web site asserts that list owners have the right to approve the forwarding of e-mail from one list to another. Yet, barring a rule applicable to a particular list, I am aware of no legal basis for it. On the contrary, one would not expect members of most e-mail lists to object if their messages are forwarded to others likely to be interested. Likewise, few who post to public lists would object to having their messages archived. Archiving clearly serves the interests of members who may occasionally want to revisit topics addressed earlier. Indeed, most would prefer that to seeing topics rehashed--the reason one often sees lists of frequently asked questions (FAQs) with answers. Can writers revoke permission once granted, say for messages they later wish had not been sent? Circumstances that would warrant a revocation of an implied license are surely rare. Courts generally do not favor imposing unreasonable obligations on others. Because list owners cannot recall messages once distributed, authors should be careful what they post. One more caveat is in order about implied licenses to use other's postings: If you forward a message or use part of one in responding, do not change the author's meaning. No one implies permission to attribute embarrassing (or worse) messages they did not write! ********* The above was quoted from http://www.press.umich.edu/jep/05-01/field.html ...copyrighted by them, of course. No one changed or altered the OP's information. No one is trying to profit from it. No one is claiming copyright on it. It would appear to be fair use to archive or mirror the material!
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9defd00d965ba7f897841f547ee9ed4f>