cryptoanarchy.wiki

Arise, you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences!

1994-02-01 - Re: Archiving mail-lists…

Header Data

From: Mike Godwin <mnemonic@eff.org>
To: wex@media.mit.edu (Alan)
Message Hash: 55479e94b130488660d19dc39595127b4ac09b4459cad02a3909f6c3d1743eab
Message ID: <199402011701.MAA08013@eff.org>
Reply To: <9402011645.AA04676@media.mit.edu>
UTC Datetime: 1994-02-01 17:05:27 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 1 Feb 94 09:05:27 PST

Raw message

From: Mike Godwin <mnemonic@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 94 09:05:27 PST
To: wex@media.mit.edu (Alan)
Subject: Re: Archiving mail-lists...
In-Reply-To: <9402011645.AA04676@media.mit.edu>
Message-ID: <199402011701.MAA08013@eff.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


 
Alan Wexelblat writesK

> Ah, the old I'm-not-a-lawyer-but-I-play-one-on-the-net.
> 
> Problem with Jason Zions' position:
> 	- Not at all clear that Berne applies to electronic mail, even of a
> personal nature

Hey, it's clear to me.

> 	- Not at all clear that postings to a publicly-read list like this
> are not equivalent to speech in a public place (ie not necessarily
> copyrighted)

That's not the measure of copyright. It's whether the expression has been
instantiated in a tangible medium.

> 	- Not at all clear what the status of private communications is vis
> a vis publication.  The courts in the US seem to be flip-flopping all over
> the place in a couple of recent cases involving correspondence used to write
> biographies (one of L Ron Hubbard sticks in my mind and I forget who the
> other was about).
 
They flipflop because of the trickiness of Fair Use--there's no
hard-and-fast rule as to what qualifies.

> You can't just wave your hand and say the magic word "Berne" and thereby
> prevent someone from archiving, reposting etc your messages to this list.
 
True, but you can say "Berne" and settle the issue of copyright.



--Mike

Thread