Re: Email Archive Request

2001-05-04 Thread Sam TH
On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 10:13:32PM -0400, Brian Ristuccia wrote: > On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 08:47:38PM -0500, Sam TH wrote: > > > > But then, Tivo's remove television as a broadcast medium. The > > technical details involved in sending a message to lots of people are > > likely irrelevant from a le

Re: Email Archive Request

2001-05-04 Thread Brian Ristuccia
On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 08:47:38PM -0500, Sam TH wrote: > > But then, Tivo's remove television as a broadcast medium. The > technical details involved in sending a message to lots of people are > likely irrelevant from a legal perspective. If you watch TV on your > computer, and the broadcast is

Re: Email Archive Request

2001-05-04 Thread Sam TH
On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 08:51:51PM -0400, Brian Ristuccia wrote: > On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 07:39:14PM -0500, Sam TH wrote: > > On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 07:26:04PM -0400, Brian Ristuccia wrote: > > > that gave him the letters. One can hardly argue that a latter sent to a > > > public mailing list is

Re: Email Archive Request

2001-05-04 Thread Sam TH
On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 06:00:09PM -0700, Mark Rafn wrote: > > But realistically, don't post to the list if you want the message kept > private. You might have a technical legal standing to have it removed > from the archive, but you'll piss a lot of people off in the process, cost > Debian a lot

Re: Email Archive Request

2001-05-04 Thread Mark Rafn
> On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 07:26:04PM -0400, Brian Ristuccia wrote: > > that gave him the letters. One can hardly argue that a latter sent to a > > public mailing list is unpublished. On Fri, 4 May 2001, Sam TH wrote: > Actually, that isn't true. To quote from 17 USC 101: > > "Publication" is th

Re: Email Archive Request

2001-05-04 Thread Brian Ristuccia
On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 07:39:14PM -0500, Sam TH wrote: > On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 07:26:04PM -0400, Brian Ristuccia wrote: > > that gave him the letters. One can hardly argue that a latter sent to a > > public mailing list is unpublished. > > > > Actually, that isn't true. To quote from 17 USC 1

Re: Email Archive Request

2001-05-04 Thread Sam TH
On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 07:26:04PM -0400, Brian Ristuccia wrote: > that gave him the letters. One can hardly argue that a latter sent to a > public mailing list is unpublished. > Actually, that isn't true. To quote from 17 USC 101: "Publication" is the distribution of copies or phonorecords o

Re: Email Archive Request

2001-05-04 Thread Brian Ristuccia
On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 05:39:06PM -0500, Sam TH wrote: > On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 03:58:29PM -0400, James Miller wrote: > > Courts have construed the conveyance of coyprighted material and later > > attempts to revoke rights to "use" as unenforceable. In a case > > involving a company that did som

Re: request

2001-05-04 Thread Branden Robinson
On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 10:05:44PM +0100, Sergio Brandano wrote: > Yes, of course. We are friends. You're not acting like one. Go away, and don't come back. -- G. Branden Robinson | One man's theology is another man's Debian GNU/Linux| belly laugh. [EMAIL

RE: Email Archive Request

2001-05-04 Thread Eric Sherrill
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 appl

Re: request

2001-05-04 Thread Walter Landry
> Should we honor X-No-Archive? That's a fairly standard header with > this intent. I don't think we should. The message is part of the discussion and is disseminated to everyone on the list. Not archiving would be counterproductive and, in terms of copyright violations, just silly. We could bou

Re: Email Archive Request

2001-05-04 Thread Sam TH
On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 03:58:29PM -0400, James Miller wrote: > Courts have construed the conveyance of coyprighted material and later > attempts to revoke rights to "use" as unenforceable. In a case > involving a company that did some special effects for a movie company > that then failed to pay

Re: request

2001-05-04 Thread Osamu Aoki
US $1000 / each for "posting removal fee" shall be charged just like SPAM. To do this, notification on web page may be good idea. I do not see exact reason behind Sergio Brandano's request. But as others already said, this is ML and implicit consent was given. Policing any inappropriate material

Re: request

2001-05-04 Thread Mark Rafn
[preface: I'm not a lawyer. This is intended to be common sense advice rather than a legal opinion. If you think your copyright on valuable work has been infringed, you should perhaps seek legal counsel.] On Fri, 4 May 2001, Sergio Brandano wrote: > We are talking about written words, carrying

Re: request

2001-05-04 Thread Brian Ristuccia
On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 08:00:40PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote: > > > > Please, either erase my messages from your archives or implement > > some other solution to the problem I am rising. > Debian archives and/or allows third parties to archive all of its lists. Almost every list has been arch

Re: request

2001-05-04 Thread David Starner
On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 08:00:40PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote: > On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 07:37:52PM +0100, Sergio Brandano wrote: > > Personally, I don't see a problem. I believe that by posting a message to a > mailing list that is publically archived you implicitely indicated your > consent with a

Email Archive Request

2001-05-04 Thread James Miller
This is my first post and because I'm a law student I need to consult with my ethics teacher for advice on how I should be replying on the list. I do want to offer the general points of law, but IT IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE. :)_ Courts have construed the conveyance of coyprighted material and later at

Re: request

2001-05-04 Thread Wichert Akkerman
Previously Sergio Brandano wrote: > I agree. I propose a very simple solution: to archive and index > emails as usual, as far as the date of these emails is no older than > six (6) months. This is also in line with the need for our mailing > lists to allow other friends to benefit from our

Re: request

2001-05-04 Thread Sergio Brandano
... > If you could explain the nature of these emails and why you would > not want them archived, perhaps you would get a sympathetic hearing. Yes, of course. We are friends. We are talking about written words, carrying the name of the author. These written words are being archived, indexed

Re: request

2001-05-04 Thread Josip Rodin
On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 07:37:52PM +0100, Sergio Brandano wrote: > ( I hope "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" is not a mailing list > itself; I believe I posted my message to the main listmaintainer. ) I'm afraid that it's also a mailing list -- that address points to [EMAIL PROTECTED] There is no single "m

Re: What about NPL?

2001-05-04 Thread Aaron Lehmann
On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 03:33:17PM +0200, Ola Lundqvist wrote: > Hi > > I have a question: http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/MPL-1.1.txt > Is this a ok license. Can it go to main or does it > have to go to non-free/contrib? http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/netscape-npl.html But yes, it is free.

Re: What about NPL?

2001-05-04 Thread Sam TH
On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 03:33:17PM +0200, Ola Lundqvist wrote: > Hi > > I have a question: http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/MPL-1.1.txt > Is this a ok license. Can it go to main or does it > have to go to non-free/contrib? Both the NPL and the MPL are Free Software licenses. sam th --- [EM

What about NPL?

2001-05-04 Thread Ola Lundqvist
Hi I have a question: http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/MPL-1.1.txt Is this a ok license. Can it go to main or does it have to go to non-free/contrib? I'm not on the list so please cc me. :) Regards, // Ola -- - Ola Lundqvist --- / [EMAIL PROTECTED]