Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2005 14:20:23 -0800 From: Joshua Tinnin <krinklyfig@spymac.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Cc: Anthony Atkielski <atkielski.anthony@wanadoo.fr> Subject: Re: favor Message-ID: <200502061420.24415.krinklyfig@spymac.com> In-Reply-To: <675747489.20050206154301@wanadoo.fr> References: <1574286459.20050205120828@wanadoo.fr> <LOBBIFDAGNMAMLGJJCKNIEEHFAAA.tedm@toybox.placo.com> <675747489.20050206154301@wanadoo.fr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sunday 06 February 2005 06:43 am, Anthony Atkielski <atkielski.anthony@wanadoo.fr> wrote: > The requirements of contract law are not waived simply because they are > inconvenient for one party. A contract, once concluded, remains binding > even if one party finds it troublesome to live up to its obligations > under the contract. What contract is implied here? > Not to people whose ability to pay rent and buy groceries depends on > being able to control the use of their intellectual property. Is this what has happened here? Has the OP's ability to pay rent been damaged by her archived post? If the OP's copyright to her post is infringed by archiving that post, then what, exactly, are the damages? > TM> Correct, I should have said 'and Fair Use' as Fair Use was developed > TM> separately from the First Amendment. > > Yes. And it's just a quirk of copyright law, not a Constitutional > right. No, Fair Use is more of an aspect of copyright law. No "quirk" is going to affect the nature of copyright to that extent. > TM> If she is asking Google to remove the links, then correct. But she > TM> wasn't, she was asking the FreeBSD list maintainers to remove it > TM> from their archive. > > That is her prerogative, unless she had explicitly agreed to the > archiving of her posts. There's a big difference between ephemeral and > durable forms of distribution. Granting permission to use material that > will be seen temporarily and then will disappear is very different from > granting permission to use material in perpetuity. The former does not > imply the latter. > > Furthermore, a public archive exposes her posts to an audience well > beyond that subscribed to the mailing list, and when she subscribes she > only consents implicitly to distribution to the latter, not the former > (and then only temporarily). How do you suggest this list and all others like it deal with this matter, in practical terms? Don't suggest hiring lawyers, as that's hardly practical. What are the practical effects of a lawsuit? What damages would be sought, and under what pretense? - jt
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200502061420.24415.krinklyfig>