On 12 Jul 2005 at 12:17, Andrew Stiller wrote: > On Jul 11, 2005, at 11:59 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote: > > > I'm with Aaron. I really don't care if my email address is > > available for anyone to see in the Google cache, but I DO care about > > having searchable archives, and since we de-linked from Google, > > that's impossible. > > I also agree with this viewpoint. And I am frankly dismayed at the > contempt for the public domain expressed in some of the postings in > this thread. . . .
The concept of "public domain" as regards to copyright should not be confused with publicly available information. > . . . Since 1983 the public domain in this country has been > whittled almost out of existence, and a nostalgic yearning for a > supposed earlier time when "copyrights meant something" reminds me of > nothing so much as the assertion from the far right that Christians > have become a persecuted minority in the US. In both cases there is a > really serious disconnect from reality. Posts to mailing lists have *never* been in the public domain, Andrew, at least not in the sense that "public domain" is used as a legal construct in copyright law. > As for asserting copyright in one's postings to an internet forum, > that's simply antisocial. You might as well declare copyright on your > after-dinner conversation. Fortunately, it's legal hooey, since a > "private" list that publicizes its existence and accepts anyone who > signs up is not in fact private by either statute or case law. On the fact of it, that argument seems completely wrong to me. The list is *not* publicly available to anyone. You have to identify yourself to the list owner (even if it's done in an automated fashion), and that list owner has the ability to deny you access to the information. Secondly, the archives of the list that are maintained by the owner of the list are not open to the public. That is a pretty clear indication of a certain intent to restrict some of the information from full public disclosure. A mailing list, to which you must subscribe, is very different from a public posting forum like an unmoderated Usenet group, which is publicly available to anyone with access to a Usenet server carrying the the newsgroup. The point here is that someone is using content posted for the use of subscribers to the mailing list for purposes that are not explicitly authorized by the subscribers when they sign up. Adding insult to injury, these sites are profiting from that re-use. They are using my posts without my permission. They are profiting from that re-use. >From a copyright point of view, on principle, it's a pretty open-and- shut case. Legally, it's not as easy, since enforcing copyright usually requires the realistic threat of a lawsuit. But on principle, it's a pretty clear case. -- David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associates http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc All non-quoted content (c) David W. Fenton, all rights reserved _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
