On 12 Jul 2005 at 17:51, Andrew Stiller wrote: > On Jul 12, 2005, at 4:01 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: > > >> 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. > > A large body of case law, mostly dealing with supposed "private clubs" > formed solely to discriminate against dark-skinned people, has > thoroughly put paid to the notion that any association (electronic or > not) can be private simply by declaring itself to be. The rulings in > these cases, it must be emphasized, did not focus on the reasons for > the privacy declaration, but on the actual extent to which privacy was > and could be expected in the operations of the organization.
You're badly confusing two different domains of privacy. This is not about who is allowed membership (as in the cases you cite), but about what is done with the communications between members of an organization. The ability of anyone with a valid email address to join does not automatically imply that the content posted on the list is public domain. > An important (non-legal) point not so far addressed here is that > ordinary conversation (which is what we have on this list) is not > truly a creative act, because it is not only unpremeditated, but in > very large part unconscious: most of the time, we don't know what we > are going to say until after we have said it. Anyone doubtful of this > concept should read the extensive discusssion of it in Dennett, > Consciousness Explained (1991). Speech--ordinary, everyday > conversation--is a fundamental and routine product of the human brain. > Trying to exercise control of such utterances after they leave one's > mouth or keyboard is like nothing so much as saving one's hair and > nail clippings. And getting indignant at what the barber does with > them w.o your permission. After all, they're your property. Says so > right here in the law. The nerve of that guy! The last time I looked, copyright law made no such distinction. If it's an utterance in a fixed form, it's copyrighted. Your comparison to hair clippings is patently absurd, and not a serious contribution to the discussion, unless it's your aim to pollute the discourse with so many irrelevancies as to make it impossible to continue. -- 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
