From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri May 6 22:48:28 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15F3116A4D4 for ; Fri, 6 May 2005 22:48:28 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtp11.wanadoo.fr (smtp11.wanadoo.fr [193.252.22.31]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F18F43D46 for ; Fri, 6 May 2005 22:48:27 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from atkielski.anthony@wanadoo.fr) Received: from me-wanadoo.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mwinf1106.wanadoo.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 875A91C00093 for ; Sat, 7 May 2005 00:48:26 +0200 (CEST) Received: from pix.atkielski.com (ASt-Lambert-111-2-1-3.w81-50.abo.wanadoo.fr [81.50.80.3]) by mwinf1106.wanadoo.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 61AFF1C00088 for ; Sat, 7 May 2005 00:48:26 +0200 (CEST) X-ME-UUID: 20050506224826400.61AFF1C00088@mwinf1106.wanadoo.fr Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 00:48:26 +0200 From: Anthony Atkielski X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <106561294.20050507004826@wanadoo.fr> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: References: <20050506105722.099954BEAD@ws1-1.us4.outblaze.com> <1997311903.20050506130845@wanadoo.fr> <0AC758EB7E2462CBCDB89994@utd49554.utdallas.edu> <1946109313.20050506204814@wanadoo.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE! X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 May 2005 22:48:28 -0000 Paul Schmehl writes: > Here's a webpage that makes your arguments laughable: > > > It's a mailing list to discuss digital copyright. Its archives are > searchable, and there's no requirement to agree to that when you subscribe. What's so funny about it? > This one is even funnier: > > > Searchable archives going back to 1997. See above. > You *still* haven't provided *one* link to prove anything you've said. Copyright law isn't good enough? > On the Internet, that's tantamount to an admission that you're > blowing smoke. No, it's not. I see people posting links all the time (hmm), and posting links typically doesn't prove anything. You can find a link to "prove" just about anything you want on the Internet. > I doubt seriously your *extremely* strict interpretation of copyright would > hold up in any court of law in the US or anywhere else for that matter. Your doubts are not important. It's what actually happens in court that's important. > I have no doubt that you could find a judge somewhere to rule > in your favor. I don't know. > After all, judges make incredibly stupid rulings daily. Maybe you should advise them, so that they can benefit from your wisdom, and your collection of Web links. > But in the end, your argument would fall on deaf ears when saner minds > were engaged. I'm not so sure. I think it better to be safe than sorry. > When you post to a public list, your post are not copyrighted material. > They exist in the public domain. False. Anything you write is copyrighted as soon as you record it. It never enters the public domain unless you release it explicitly to the public domain or the copyright expires (70 years after your death). -- Anthony