On May 6, 2005, at 2:42 PM, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Bart Silverstrim writes:
Yeah, cuz, we wouldn't want the archives to be referenced for people who are looking for help on topics, after all.
Do you think that subscribers would refuse to grant permission to have their posts archived? If so, doesn't that say something to you about archiving posts without their permission?
Obviously some subscribers can't be bothered to actually read the FAQ on the subscription page. I know, how about someone make all the forms you seem to want here? One form to say people can archive your post...another for allowing searches from outside sources...another to allow people to have it on their own mail client, in case they keep it for reference...maybe another to allow/disallow printing? How about one for replying? Would that still entail another form to allow people to quote you in their reply?
Face it. You implied the consent by signing up, and if you had some common sense and actually read the material on the site you KNEW about the archives and claiming otherwise makes you look foolish. It has been the standard MO for people to point questioners to reading the handbook then the FAQ's then go Google then use the mailing lists. If you're too lazy to research this and not bright enough to figure out what is implied as "common knowledge" from these things, then they can't help that person. In my time on the Internet using mailing lists and usenet groups it had been recommended that people lurk for awhile and go through archives before posting. Evidently this is too obscure a concept for some people to grasp.
Do they need to issue a specific list of "what to do" when using FreeBSD or interacting with the community?
Yes, legally. If you don't tell them, it's not their responsibility.
Ah...they're too stupid to take responsibility for their actions? Is that what you're saying?
My step daughter climbs a tree in the neighbor's yard. By your way of thinking, if she falls and breaks her leg, I should sue the neighbor. Common sense says that it wasn't the neighbor's fault, I knew she was there, she knew she was taking that risk, and if she falls, it's her fault.
The neighbor has nothing to worry about with me. Evidently you're a different story.
And if you do things for which you need permission without asking for and obtaining permission, it's your responsibility.
Sure. Look up fair use. The FreeBSD people have nothing to worry about because people like you already whined about this many moons ago and thus the concepts of fair use and implied consent was cited. Look in the Wikipedia on fair use, and at www.legal-explanations.com/definitions/implied-consent.htm for implied consent. If you never bothered actually figuring out how the majority of tech lists work or actually reading the materials and links at the FreeBSD site, then it's not their fault you're too dense to figure out there exists an archive of mailing list materials.
And how many people would actually follow it ANYWAY?
It doesn't matter. It's a question of protecting oneself legally.
Great. Let's pollute the mindshare with more crap to add to the noise. It helps train people to ignore it in the future so people like you can start slipping your own pet clauses into the rules. Politicians have been taking advantage of that for awhile now...make so just cruft, crud, and noise that people won't tell what's good from what's crap because they ignore it, and now you can claim "well it was there in the fine print all along..."
Maybe you're a budding spammer?
Most don't even read the @#%# EULA on the software they install on their home computer.
Nevertheless, they agree to be bound by it when they check the little box that says "I accept."
That's legally questionable now.
What's funny is that some businesses don't even read their own boilerplates anymore. And it's been rendered so ineffective that they do stupid things, like "opening this package means you agree to the enclosed license agreement". How can you agree to it if you can't read it? Duh.
How many other people on this list are daft enough to agree with that line of argument, that the legalese on the paper Joe Average is expected to understand is effective and useful and is fully enforceable now? In Anthony's future, it seems that everyone would need to employ a lawyer to review everything people do to make sure they fully understand their rights and what is being signed away and what's going to happen if they do X or sign up for Y or buy Z.
Does anyone remember a time when people were expected to take responsibility for their own actions?
Most users out there still think they OWN their operating system ...
Some people think that they own any messages posted on their servers.
Legally, they do, if they're your employer. Remember your emphasis on reading those agreements?
Archives aren't profiting from your copyrighted words. There goes most of your argument to stop them. I can't think of a reason they'd WANT to claim your words as their own...so there goes the majority of your legal wrangling that was left to work with. You do own the copyright, it's acknowledged by those who properly quote, and more to the point, the archives are the equivalent to the artist or author who takes his or her work, seals it in an envelope, then mails it to him or herself without opening it to prove it was their work on that date. The archives PROVE you wrote it and when! IT ACTUALLY HELPS ENFORCE COPYRIGHT CLAIMS!
How about people use common sense before joining lists and posting to them, and take some responsibility for the things they do?
Common sense says that when you subscribe to a list, your posts are seen
only by other people on the list, not by the entire world.
Not when the site with the subscription information tells you there are archives.
And common sense tells you that you shouldn't bitch about privacy after you send your words out to $DEITY-knows-how-many strangers in the first place.
It's certainly no secret that these posts are archived out there ...
It doesn't have to be a secret; subscribers must still agree to it.
Implied consent. And fair use. How'd you THINK those messages were getting in the archives? Magic? If you're that worried about it, why didn't it occur to you that you weren't asked if you'd like to be included in those magical archives?
It's no secret that software is copyrighted; however, software companies
still force users to accept a EULA so that they cannot claim that they
didn't know they were licensing copyrighted material.
You must not be a sysadmin or you'd know that 99% of users don't know they're licensing software. They think they own it. Why? Because they have clickclickclickclick syndrome. They CAN claim they didn't know because so many idiots pollute people's time and mindshare with legalese that they don't care about. They just want to get the job done. All your disclaimers and EULAS are just more yadayada to them. I know of one case where a EULA was found enforceable...but you don't hear about too many of these cases. A EULA is a contract, and if you don't understand the terms of the contract, there are circumstances where you cannot be held liable for signing it because you were too ignorant to understand what you were signing away. Well, how many Joe Averages know what they're doing with EULAs?
Maybe you should mull over issues like those at http://interactionlaw.com/id12.html . Or www.freedom-to-tinker.com/archives/000478.html .
Maybe you should also take the above argument and balance that with what I originally said about the archives existing and being pointed to RIGHT IN THE FAQ that the site asked users to read FIRST. In plain @#% English. No legal mumbo jumbo. If anything, even the most dense who can follow directions should have known what they were getting into, far more clearly that someone having to read a disclaimergreement.
It's no secret that most computer systems are not open to everyone;
Maybe someone should tell that to an open-source group, and to the people signing up to lists having something to do with a group that believes in free exchange of information.
however, sysadmins (at least those who know what they are doing) still
must put messages in login procedures that advise users of the
restricted character of access to the system. Otherwise intruders could
say that they didn't know access was restricted.
Damn...if the claim isn't there on a big sign that you're not allowed on the premises of a bank after hours, how was I supposed to know I wasn't allowed to break the window and go in to find some money laying around?
What about the cemetery that didn't have fencing and a sign every ten feet saying you're not allowed there after sundown?
Those darn legal loopholes!
Better yet start some arguments with the governments and businesses that are video taping people with security cameras on street corners and inside stores.
Many jurisdictions require that persons on private property be apprised of any video recording, precisely because of the privacy implications.
Many, not all. AND you're not required notice in public. It's where you can NOT REASONABLY expect privacy. You can't sue some vacationer for getting you in their vacation video.
Persons attending a concert that is being videotaped also must be apprised of this on their tickets; their consent to recording cannot necessarily be presumed.
Yeah, because reasonable people would never fathom why there may be recordings and pictures taken at a concert.
_______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
