Re: [tlug] Mailing list web archives..... Is this leagal ?

["Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@example.com>]

Attila Kinali writes:

 > <mode=IANAL>
 > I do not know about US law, but in the european countries i know it
 > depends on the nature of the mailinglist. If you publicily archive
 > something that is already public, then there is not much anyone
 > can do.

But what makes you think it's "public" in the relevant sense?  You can
go into any computer store and walk out with a copy of Microsoft
Windows, so that's pretty public.  Good luck with your new "Kinali 7"
business, though.

 > Or to put it into a non-virtual example: if you collect old news
 > papers and make your archive open to anyone who happends to be
 > there, then there is nothing the newspaper can do about it.
 > Though, you are not allowed to make copies of the newspapers and
 > distribute then, your "users" are allowed to take your newspapers
 > to the next copy machine and make copies for themselves.

Sure.  But re-posting something on the web requires that you make
copies for your users and send the copies to them.  In the
U.S. copyright law definitely applies.  In particular, it would
certainly be possible for an author to insist that his posts be
archived only on the original site.  (On my lists I'd fix that by
banning the author. ;-)

 > Thus, while copyright law is the one that maily governs our way
 > how we handle newspapers, it's privacy law that mainly governs
 > our way how we deal with mailinglists.

Not in the U.S.  I'd be willing to bet it's not true in Europe,
either, but I don't claim to know anything about European law.  (I'm
sure that privacy laws do apply in Europe; what I'm willing to bet is
that copyright law applies too.)

 > On the other hand, if you put a transcript of an public and open
 > discussion somewhere on the web, privacy doesn't apply anymore,
 > because the discussion was public anyways. And i don't think you
 > can apply copyright law on this case either.

Of course you can.  The whole point of copyright is to protect
"published" works (where "published" here means more or less what
"propagated" means in GPLv3).  If you haven't transferred a copy to
anyone, you don't have to worry about people copying it!  No need for
copyright.  And if you display your painting in a museum, that doesn't
give people the right to take photos and use them on their websites.
The whole point of copyright is to allow you to publish (make public)
your work, and still retain control over making and distributing copies.

 > I don't think the Berne Convention does touch the field of mailinglists
 > at all. If i understand it correctly, the Berne Convention only deals
 > with artistic work, which does not apply to discussions as such.

You misunderstand the definition of "protected works".  By "literary"
it means *verbal*, by "artistic" it means *non-verbal*.  It
specificially mentions "speeches and addresses", and does not restrict
medium.  It's quite clear that things like software and fonts can be
protected, too, from the clause about "works of applied art and
industrial designs and models".  The only things the definition
excludes are "mere facts".