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 unpublished letters that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 a
On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 02:17:11AM -0400, James Miller wrote:
> One thing that concerns me about both the GPL and Open Source licenses
> in general is that there's undue focus on their treatment under U.S.
> law. We need to consider hte international implications carefully as
> well, particular
On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 01:54:09AM -0400, James Miller wrote:
> Martin Luther King Jr.' s estate brought a successful claim of
> infringment for his "I have a dream speech" on the basis that it was
> "unpublished" within the meaning of hte statute.
I think you've got it wrong. According to Proje
Well, at least in the common-law jurisdictions the contractural waivers
will get significant weight. I think we can craft a narrow moral rights
exclaimer as well--blanket waivers can be problematic however. If the
author seeks to revoke their consent you get into the non-exclusive
rights anal
But there are cases where a transferee is deemed to have a non-exclusive
license for some sec. 106 purposes. See Effects Associates.
In any event do we agree that a disclaimer is a good idea to prevent any
ambigutiies in the future? Shall we send the disclaimer to debian list
members informi
I don't disagree but I think there should be a disclaimer when the major-domo
requests are processed that requires assent to redistribution.
Alot of this stuff seems esoteric until you get sued... ;< I mean
frankly copyright law hasn't been much of an issue except to libraries and
musicians unt
Martin Luther King Jr.' s estate brought a successful claim of
infringment for his "I have a dream speech" on the basis that it was
"unpublished" within the meaning of hte statute.
I wonder if the string of cases for defamation/tort for Email's (seems
like AOL was implicated in one suit) don'
; Stafford, TX 77477-3006
> 281-274-4133
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sam TH [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, May 04, 2001 5:39 PM
> To: James Miller
> Cc: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: Email Archive Request
>
>
> On Fri, May
On Sat, May 05, 2001 at 02:41:33AM -0400, Brian Ristuccia wrote:
> On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 09:56:01PM -0500, Sam TH wrote:
> >
> > You could easily write a streaming SMTP client. Sure, it's a bad
> > idea, but that never stopped copyright law before. The choice of
> > whether to record has every
On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 09:56:01PM -0500, Sam TH wrote:
>
> You could easily write a streaming SMTP client. Sure, it's a bad
> idea, but that never stopped copyright law before. The choice of
> whether to record has everything to do with the reciever, and nothing
> to do with the medium.
>
A
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
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
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
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
> 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
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
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
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
truments HFAB1 Automation Systems
Stafford, TX 77477-3006
281-274-4133
-Original Message-
From: Sam TH [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2001 5:39 PM
To: James Miller
Cc: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Email Archive Request
On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 03:58:29PM
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
20 matches
Mail list logo
