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

[Attila Kinali <attila@example.com>]

On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 22:38:39 +0900
"Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@example.com> wrote:

> 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.

The act of releasing something into _known_ uncontrollable medium
that is highly mirrored. In Europe, you have to know what you are
doing. Pledging that you didn't know that the mailinglist was public
and you would never have said that if you knew, are basically void
(unless the mailinglist gives the impression of being private).
So, if you subscribe to a mailinglist that is public and post your
highly intellectual uterings there, you forfeit, to some extend,
your rights to control its distribution.
 
>  > 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.

If you use this strict interpretation, then any mailinglist archive
would be impossible, as you are copying and republishing other
peoples posts. If you apply it even stricter, it makes mailinglists
that do not ask the poster to whom his post should be send impossble too.

>  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. ;-)

We had a few of "i didnt know this mailinglist is public and want
my post removed" on the MPlayer and FFmpeg mailinglists. Our response
to this is always "you knew it was a public mailinglist, now it's too
late. it is on the net and cannot be removed again". And sofar noone
ever called his lawyer, though a chinese once was vehemently insisting
on his right for his posts to be removed.
 
>  > 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.)

I'd be lying if i'd said that i know european laws ^^;
But as i wrote above, the use and intend of the mailinglist
limits the application of copyright.

>  > 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.

That's true.

>  > 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".

Hmm.. you're right here. The Berne Conventions wording is a lot
more broad than i remembered. And a word by word application of
it would make certain uses of "works" we have to day, quite illegal.


			Attila Kinali


-- 
The trouble with you, Shev, is you don't say anything until you've saved
up a whole truckload of damned heavy brick arguments and then you dump
them all out and never look at the bleeding body mangled beneath the heap
		-- Tirin, The Dispossessed, U. Le Guin