Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 10:30:30 +0200 From: Anthony Atkielski <atkielski.anthony@wanadoo.fr> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE! Message-ID: <1031726473.20050507103030@wanadoo.fr> In-Reply-To: <200505070528.38909.danny@ricin.com> References: <20050506103934.10FA34BEAD@ws1-1.us4.outblaze.com> <200505070336.01785.danny@ricin.com> <698260003.20050507045248@wanadoo.fr> <200505070528.38909.danny@ricin.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Danny Pansters writes: > Now you lump me into some self defined "geek community". I didn't say anything about you. > Apparently I don't respect the rule of law now. Isn't that slander? FYI, slander is verbal defamation; written defamation would be libel. If you truly don't respect the rule of law, then that would simply me that you don't feel constrained by law and violate it when it suits you--it would not necessarily mean that you'd be in violation of any specific law. Isn't my post copyrighted? Copyrights are enforced by the same courts that handle defamation. > By extension that also includes the people that make and sustain > FreeBSD. What does? > So the answer is DUNNO thank you. The answer is that there are no firm precedents, so anything goes. And therefore prudence is wise. > How else are generally broadcasted text messages covered then? As soon as the message is created, it is copyrighted. That's how copyright works. The author need not do anything special to ensure copyright protection; it is automatic upon creation of the protected work. > Yes but it already pretty much does IMHO. No, it does not. > Perhaps it could be stated more absolutely. Yes, it could. It would also be convenient to be able to enable or disable archiving on a per-subscriber basis, or even a per-message basis (with headers). > 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. Since a rant of this type would be totally irrelevant to the subject at hand, it might be best to refrain. > Which means that FreeBSD's openness is somehow at fault? It has nothing to do with FreeBSD's "openness." > So don't claim it is conclusive. It is void. Void. Void. The copyrights indisputably exist, and there's no specific statutory exemption for mailing lists. It's difficult to see upon what basis a successful defense against infringement could be built. > You were the one talking about superimposing DMCA upon your > national laws. The DMCA is already a part of national laws, in the U.S. > Yes, but perhaps not all, or not even most. Someone who can read code > can also read legalese. Not true. They are two entirely different things, and code geeks often have poor reading and writing skills to begin with. Since legalese is often at the upper end of reading difficulty, then, many geeks cannot understand it--which is perhaps one reason why they think they can ignore it. > It won't be me anyhow (if applying your ethics). If you applied my ethics, you would not be infringing in the first place. -- Anthony
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1031726473.20050507103030>