On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 01:39:49AM -0400, James Miller wrote: > > --- Eric Sherrill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Yes, but in the _Salinger_ case, these were > > unpublished letters that > > Salinger wished to prevent from being published. > > Usenet posts and public > > mailing list posts are the very definition of > > published, widely disseminated > > works. Thus I would distinguish _Salinger_ from > > _Cohen_, which seems more > > applicable to the current discussion. > > I agree. I'd also like to add that this presents a problematic > international comparative problem because in French and other > Jurisductions recognizing the right of retraction these posts (and some > much else...) is all subject to retraction, perhaps despite any > contractural waiver or other assignment of economic rights for copying > or adapatation..
Hmmm. If a post were retracted, wouldn't that logically (or legally) necessitate that any other posting in reply to that post also be retracted, quoted or not? Looking at the mailing lists as a *discussion*, if some utterance is retroactively taken away, no utterance in response to it could logically exist. -- Ferret
