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

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

Attila Kinali writes:

 > > 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.

That's a shame.  And Europeans always complain about the need for
lawyers in the U.S.!

 > 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.

In other words, if it might be worth something to others, *don't* tell
them unless you have a signed NDA.  This is not the way to build
public spirit, although it often works to build the kind of community
that we economists call "a cartel".

 > > 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.

No.  Remember, in the U.S., with a few exceptions involving deliberate
commercialization of infringing material and anything that involves
hacking "technical means", copyright infringement is not illegal, it's
a tort.  Ie, you are liable to a court order to stop doing it and pay
damages, possibly including punitive damages.

What that means is that the mailing list, if the archiving policy is
known, can presume agreement of posters, but that agreement can be
withdrawn.  Because of the presumption, however, there is no
possibility of a criminal indictment (unless malice or another such
motive could be proved *and* financial gain was involved -- obviously
the DMCA is irrelevant here), and proving a tort would be very
difficult, so there's very little risk of damages.

However, a mirror is different matter.  The author has done *nothing*
(under U.S. law) that indicates any implicit permission for the mirror
to publish; he did not mail it to the mirror.  The mirror therefore is
at risk of a tort in a way that the mailing list is not.  And if the
mirror is commercial (eg, sells ads), uh-oh.

 > 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".

Heh.  That's a lie.  You can't do anything about further propagation,
but you sure can do something about your own archive.  I *know* you
can, because I always do.

Also, if it were a privacy issue, you know you damn well would do it.

 > 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.

Do you have a reference for that?  Or is it just the European version
of joushiki ("the lies that everybody knows are true because everybody
else says them")?

 > 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

Hey!  I resemble that remark!