Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Mike Brown]

Anthony Atkielski wrote:
> It _is_ the fault of the mailing list manager that posts are being
> archived without the permission of mailing-list members.  Members must
> be required to explicitly grant permission when they subscribe.

Even if they did, there is no way for the mailing list software or the 
administrators of the list to know who is receiving the messages or whether 
those addresses correspond to individual human beings. The list is just a list 
of addresses. It is quite possible, even likely, that at least one or two of 
the addresses subscribed to this very list are archiving every post, or 
perhaps reflecting the posts to email users on another network.

In short, if you don't want it public, don't post it.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Chris]

Joshua Tinnin wrote:
> On Sun 8 May 05 02:00, Anthony Atkielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> wrote:
> 
>>Timothy Smith writes:
>>
>>>but you DO have to consent to the terms and conditions in to
>>>confirmation email that is sent to you ...
>>
>>There are no terms and conditions in the confirmation e-mail that
>>mention copyright, archives, or publication outside the mailing list.
> 
> 
> What damage have you caused to yourself by your own words that would in 
> any way involve responsibility by the list host? What, exactly, have 
> you lost monetarily by posting in your own words on this list? If you 
> have lost money by posting here, you need to be able to prove it. If 
> you haven't lost money, or you can't prove it, you do not have a leg to 
> stand on in court. And, finally, the copyright of postings to this list 
> are not owned by the people who wrote them, according to case law and 
> copyright law. Look it up. Seriously. 
> 
> Can this be over now?
> 
> - jt

He lost nothing money wise. He has exposed himself as a Troll tho.


-- 
Best regards,
Chris

Assumption is the mother of all foul-ups.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Joshua Tinnin]

On Sun 8 May 05 02:00, Anthony Atkielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
> Timothy Smith writes:
> > but you DO have to consent to the terms and conditions in to
> > confirmation email that is sent to you ...
>
> There are no terms and conditions in the confirmation e-mail that
> mention copyright, archives, or publication outside the mailing list.

What damage have you caused to yourself by your own words that would in 
any way involve responsibility by the list host? What, exactly, have 
you lost monetarily by posting in your own words on this list? If you 
have lost money by posting here, you need to be able to prove it. If 
you haven't lost money, or you can't prove it, you do not have a leg to 
stand on in court. And, finally, the copyright of postings to this list 
are not owned by the people who wrote them, according to case law and 
copyright law. Look it up. Seriously. 

Can this be over now?

- jt
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

RE: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

No Juha, only that ONE message was forged from me.  Please carefully read
the posts that you are responding to.

Ted
  -Original Message-
  From: Juha Saarinen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2005 3:33 PM
  To: Ted Mittelstaedt
  Cc: Laurent Debacker; Fafa Hafiz Krantz; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Subject: Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!





  On 5/9/05, Ted Mittelstaedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Laurent, let me spell it out - that last message was from me, Ted, not
from Fafa.  I forged Fafa's name on it to show how easy it is to
forge mail and how it is not legally viable or possible for the real
Fafa to prove that the messages in the archive are really from him,
thus he would have no grounds for suing anyone.

I am sorry that you got hoodwinked, but I cannot think of a better
illustration
of the point I was trying to make - that even when the message itself
says
it's a forgery, that people still get taken!!!


  OMG, so it's Ted that's been spamming the list to pieces as Fafa!

  Well, that was pretty clever, but could it stop now?

  --

  Juha
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Juha Saarinen]

On 5/9/05, Ted Mittelstaedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> 
> Laurent, let me spell it out - that last message was from me, Ted, not
> from Fafa. I forged Fafa's name on it to show how easy it is to
> forge mail and how it is not legally viable or possible for the real
> Fafa to prove that the messages in the archive are really from him,
> thus he would have no grounds for suing anyone.
> 
> I am sorry that you got hoodwinked, but I cannot think of a better
> illustration
> of the point I was trying to make - that even when the message itself
> says
> it's a forgery, that people still get taken!!!
> 

OMG, so it's Ted that's been spamming the list to pieces as Fafa!

Well, that was pretty clever, but could it stop now?

-- 

Juha
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

RE: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Anthony
> Atkielski
> Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2005 1:58 AM
> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
> Subject: Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!
>
>
> Ted Mittelstaedt writes:
>
> > No, Chris, we don't want to do that. If you put any kind of message
> > like that on the website you are then implying that the users have
> > copyrights in the first place on postings that they put on
> the mailing
> > list.
>
> It's better than being successfully sued or prosecuted for
> infringement.
>

The only list managers successfuly sued over this are the ones in your
dreams.

> There can be little doubt that posts are indeed protected by copyright,
> as they fall within the scope of materials that are so protected.

You are only claiming that they do.  US law does not specify that they
are nor does the Berne convention.

Maybe in another 50 years or so the next time the international copyright
convention meets and ratifies this then you might become correct - once
of course, that all the countries in the world sign off on the treaty
modifications.
But until then, you are just postulating.

The idea that a country would approve copyright rights that are far over
and
above Berne is preposterous - if they did so they would face retaliation
from
the rest of the world.  That is why Berne exists in the first place.

 The
> only question is the degree to which this copyright can be successfully
> enforced.  However, successful enforcement of a law isn't necessary to
> make the law valid, especially in torts.
>
> > Since what law there is supports the opposite assumption - that the
> > poster has no copyright on the post made in this forum - you are far
> > better legally by NOT putting such a disclaimer.
>
> Which law supports that?
>

I already posted.  Fair Use.  And, from Berne:

"...The protection of this Convention shall not apply to news of the day
or to miscellaneous facts..."

> > It is kind of like if you walk into a restaurant and pick up a fork
> > and stab yourself, then sue the restaurant claiming that they are
> > negligent in not warning you that their forks are sharp. Today you
> > don't see warning labels on forks because the law presumes
> that a fork
> > is supposed to be sharp, and it presumes that anyone of legal age to
> > enter a restaurant would know this.
>
> What is the minimum legal age to enter a restaurant?
>
> > If restaurants all started slapping warning labels on their
> forks then
> > they would create a presumption that a normal fork is dull, and that
> > the sharp kind is unexpected.
>
> Yes, but then they couldn't be sued successfully any more.
>

Sure they could, because someone would sue them claiming that their dull
fork slipped and as a result they suffered injury, and they should have
put
a warning label on the fork.

You, Anthony, apparently want to live in a world were you pick up a fork
and it either says:

"Warning: this fork is sharp and the user could suffer injury from it if
they stab themselves"

or

"Warning: this fork is dull and the user could suffer injury from it if
they slip while attempting to spear a piece of food and stab themselves"

And of course you want the warning in 15 different languages.

Thankfully, most people don't wish to live in this kind of world.

Ted

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

RE: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

Laurent, let me spell it out - that last message was from me, Ted, not
from Fafa.  I forged Fafa's name on it to show how easy it is to
forge mail and how it is not legally viable or possible for the real
Fafa to prove that the messages in the archive are really from him,
thus he would have no grounds for suing anyone.

I am sorry that you got hoodwinked, but I cannot think of a better
illustration
of the point I was trying to make - that even when the message itself
says
it's a forgery, that people still get taken!!!

Ted

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Laurent
> Debacker
> Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2005 10:26 AM
> To: Fafa Hafiz Krantz
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!
>
>
> You're really funny. At any web page related to lists of FreeBSD
> (http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions) you can
> read " To see the collection of prior postings to the list, visit the
> freebsd-questions Archives.".
>
> I also suppose you knew the existance of web bots that search engines
> use to index any web page it finds. Of course since the archives are
> web pages, the archives are indexed by every search engines.
>
> Also I wonder what you mean by "privacy". Indeed you sent messages to
> a public list where anybody can subscribe to and read messages. Also
> don't come here in Europe. Any communication can be listened by the
> USA using their echelon network.
>
> On 5/7/05, Fafa Hafiz Krantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Chris, I'm surprised at you!  Why did you pass up the opportunity to
> > forge
> > Fafa's name as the sender, to illustrate the point to the
> > clueless better. ;-)
> >
> > Oh dear, I guess I'm gonna get sued for identity theft!! ;-)
> >
> > Ted, forging Fafa.
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Chris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2005 2:05 PM
> > > To: Ted Mittelstaedt
> > > Cc: Fafa Hafiz Krantz; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Subject: Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!
> > >
> > >
> > > Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>-Original Message-
> > > >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
> Fafa Hafiz
> > > >>Krantz
> > > >>Sent: Friday, May 06, 2005 3:40 AM
> > > >>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >>Subject: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>Hello.
> > > >>
> > > >>I have a big problem. My privacy has been violated.
> > > >>
> > > >>I had no idea when I first started writing posts to the FreeBSD
> > > >>mailinglist that it would be archived, let alone indexed
> by Google
> > > >>so that the world can spy on my words.
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Looks like you aren't acquainted with the legal doctrine of
> > > > Fair Use.  Guess you will have to start using some other name
> > > > online, since there's no way to prove that any of these alleged
> > > > posts your claiming are violated, were in fact, actually made
> > > > by the real Fafa Hafiz Krantz.
> > > >
> > > > Ted
> > >
> > > Awe Ted ... Yer a spoil-sport *laffs*
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best regards,
> > > Chris
> > >
> > > Real programmers know what saad means.
> > >
> >
> > ___
> > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
> > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
> > To unsubscribe, send any mail to
> "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
> >
> ___
> freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to
> "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
>

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Laurent Debacker]

You're really funny. At any web page related to lists of FreeBSD
(http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions) you can
read " To see the collection of prior postings to the list, visit the
freebsd-questions Archives.".

I also suppose you knew the existance of web bots that search engines
use to index any web page it finds. Of course since the archives are
web pages, the archives are indexed by every search engines.

Also I wonder what you mean by "privacy". Indeed you sent messages to
a public list where anybody can subscribe to and read messages. Also
don't come here in Europe. Any communication can be listened by the
USA using their echelon network.

On 5/7/05, Fafa Hafiz Krantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> Chris, I'm surprised at you!  Why did you pass up the opportunity to
> forge
> Fafa's name as the sender, to illustrate the point to the
> clueless better. ;-)
> 
> Oh dear, I guess I'm gonna get sued for identity theft!! ;-)
> 
> Ted, forging Fafa.
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Chris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2005 2:05 PM
> > To: Ted Mittelstaedt
> > Cc: Fafa Hafiz Krantz; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!
> >
> >
> > Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> > >
> > >>-Original Message-
> > >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Fafa Hafiz
> > >>Krantz
> > >>Sent: Friday, May 06, 2005 3:40 AM
> > >>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >>Subject: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>Hello.
> > >>
> > >>I have a big problem. My privacy has been violated.
> > >>
> > >>I had no idea when I first started writing posts to the FreeBSD
> > >>mailinglist that it would be archived, let alone indexed by Google
> > >>so that the world can spy on my words.
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > Looks like you aren't acquainted with the legal doctrine of
> > > Fair Use.  Guess you will have to start using some other name
> > > online, since there's no way to prove that any of these alleged
> > > posts your claiming are violated, were in fact, actually made
> > > by the real Fafa Hafiz Krantz.
> > >
> > > Ted
> >
> > Awe Ted ... Yer a spoil-sport *laffs*
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > Chris
> >
> > Real programmers know what saad means.
> >
> 
> ___
> freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
>
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[dick hoogendijk]

On Sat, 07 May 2005 16:05:17 -0500
Chris (and lots of others) wrote:

A comment in some way or another on this topic "MY NAME ALL OVER
GOOGLE!"

At the very beginning I asked Anthony to stop, bacause all this has been
written before.
He didn't (was to be expected).

I would urge ALL of you who keep this thread going to STOP. You are all
guilty on poluting this list. It has nothing to do with items this list
is for. It also is NOT important to react because otherwise wrong
information would end up in the archives. No sir! It's not. (hey Ted ?
;-)

It has all been said before!

So why do it all over again?
There is really NO need for it other than some degree of selfimportance
(?)

So please, please, stop this list pollution.

-- 
dick -- http://nagual.st/ -- PGP/GnuPG key: F86289CE
++ Running FreeBSD 4.11 ++ FreeBSD 5.3
+ Nai tiruvantel ar vayuvantel i Valar tielyanna nu vilja
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Chris]

Anthony Atkielski wrote:
> Joshua Tinnin writes:
> 
> 
>>You live life your way. Let others do the same.
> 
> 
> They can do whatever they want, as long as they don't infringe upon my
> own rights.
> 
> 
>>I do not live my life in fear, but nor do I live it in an uninformed manner.
> 
> 
> Fear has nothing to do with it.  It's a question of conscience, ethics,
> and the Golden Rule.

Who are YOU to impose YOUR perception of:

"conscience, ethics, and the Golden Rule."

Whos to say your perception of it is in violation of someone elses,
where that someone else lives in some other part of the world?

Are you now saying that only you are capable of setting the compus on
how every human ought to live, think, believe, and conduct themselves?

See - that's the awesome thing about a public forum - one is free to
voice his/her own points of view. No matter how they may differ from
yours. And, with that being said - how can there be any infringement?

The only infringement I see - is that someone's "conscience, ethics, and
the Golden Rule" may differ from yours.

And in that case - it's just a point of view. No crime, no foul.




-- 
Best regards,
Chris

The only way to make up for being lost is to make
record time while you are lost.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Erik Nørgaard]

I see Vogons coming on the sub-Etha:
People of this thread, your attention please: This thread has been 
scheduled for demolition!

The fact that most public list are public not only by name and hence are 
open for not only you, but also your boss and your enemies, and further 
that many mailing lists, private and public, are archived for a posibly 
very long time, has been on display (RFC1855/FYI28) at www.ietf.org and 
other mirror site rfc-index.org, for almost 10 of your planetary orbits.

There's no point in acting all surprised about it. If you can't be 
bothered to take interest into your local network affairs it's your own 
lookout.

Energize thread demolition beams!
blip.
--
Ph: +34.666334818   web: http://www.locolomo.org
S/MIME Certificate: http://www.locolomo.org/crt/2004071206.crt
Subject ID:  A9:76:7A:ED:06:95:2B:8D:48:97:CE:F2:3F:42:C8:F2:22:DE:4C:B9
Fingerprint: 4A:E8:63:38:46:F6:9A:5D:B4:DC:29:41:3F:62:D3:0A:73:25:67:C2
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Tomas Quintero]

I'm sorry but doesn't this discussion belong on another list? Maybe
-chat? I dunno, surely it seems like it isn't related to any FreeBSD
technical related content. This is worse than Theo spouting off about
his next spam campaign.

Top Posting for a Reason.

On 5/8/05, Anthony Atkielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ted Mittelstaedt writes:
> 
> > No, Chris, we don't want to do that. If you put any kind of message
> > like that on the website you are then implying that the users have
> > copyrights in the first place on postings that they put on the mailing
> > list.
> 
> It's better than being successfully sued or prosecuted for infringement.
> 
> There can be little doubt that posts are indeed protected by copyright,
> as they fall within the scope of materials that are so protected. The
> only question is the degree to which this copyright can be successfully
> enforced.  However, successful enforcement of a law isn't necessary to
> make the law valid, especially in torts.
> 
> > Since what law there is supports the opposite assumption - that the
> > poster has no copyright on the post made in this forum - you are far
> > better legally by NOT putting such a disclaimer.
> 
> Which law supports that?
> 
> > It is kind of like if you walk into a restaurant and pick up a fork
> > and stab yourself, then sue the restaurant claiming that they are
> > negligent in not warning you that their forks are sharp. Today you
> > don't see warning labels on forks because the law presumes that a fork
> > is supposed to be sharp, and it presumes that anyone of legal age to
> > enter a restaurant would know this.
> 
> What is the minimum legal age to enter a restaurant?
> 
> > If restaurants all started slapping warning labels on their forks then
> > they would create a presumption that a normal fork is dull, and that
> > the sharp kind is unexpected.
> 
> Yes, but then they couldn't be sued successfully any more.
> 
> --
> Anthony
> 
> 
> ___
> freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
>
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Anthony Atkielski]

Timothy Smith writes:

> but you DO have to consent to the terms and conditions in to
> confirmation email that is sent to you ...

There are no terms and conditions in the confirmation e-mail that
mention copyright, archives, or publication outside the mailing list.

-- 
Anthony


___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Anthony Atkielski]

Ted Mittelstaedt writes:

> No, Chris, we don't want to do that. If you put any kind of message
> like that on the website you are then implying that the users have
> copyrights in the first place on postings that they put on the mailing
> list.

It's better than being successfully sued or prosecuted for infringement.

There can be little doubt that posts are indeed protected by copyright,
as they fall within the scope of materials that are so protected. The
only question is the degree to which this copyright can be successfully
enforced.  However, successful enforcement of a law isn't necessary to
make the law valid, especially in torts.

> Since what law there is supports the opposite assumption - that the
> poster has no copyright on the post made in this forum - you are far
> better legally by NOT putting such a disclaimer.

Which law supports that?

> It is kind of like if you walk into a restaurant and pick up a fork
> and stab yourself, then sue the restaurant claiming that they are
> negligent in not warning you that their forks are sharp. Today you
> don't see warning labels on forks because the law presumes that a fork
> is supposed to be sharp, and it presumes that anyone of legal age to
> enter a restaurant would know this.

What is the minimum legal age to enter a restaurant?

> If restaurants all started slapping warning labels on their forks then
> they would create a presumption that a normal fork is dull, and that
> the sharp kind is unexpected.

Yes, but then they couldn't be sued successfully any more.

-- 
Anthony


___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Anthony Atkielski]

Bart Silverstrim writes:

> Nope, because that assumes I have permission to quote ahead of time and
> I'd have an archive in my sent mail (and trash items) for a period of 
> time that you didn't explicitly allow.

No, it does not.  It does not extend the publication of your message
beyond the circle of existing subscribers, and it is only a partial
backquote, which falls within the scope of fair use (in the U.S., and in
some other countries).  What you keep personally archived is irrelevant,
since you legitimately received the message to begin with--although
having it archived doesn't mean that you can republish the message in
other venues.

> Otherwise, I'm screwed legally because I'd be violating your IP rights
> and copyright.

No.  See above.

-- 
Anthony


___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Anthony Atkielski]

Alex de Kruijff writes:

> They can claim all they like, but that doesn't mean this hold up in
> cord.

It does sometimes, which is why smart sysadmins protect against it (it's
trivially easy to do).

> In the Netherlands one who enters a protected system deliberate
> and unlawful can get half a year of jail time and a fine of about two
> thosend euro's.

And how does the law define "protected," "deliberate," and "unlawful"?

> The law doesn't say anyting about warning that need to
> be displayed.

So how does a potential intruder know that a system is protected?

> Lets say I've lost my key to my house and someone else
> found it. This still doesn't give that person the right to use it to
> gain access to my house.

How would you prove that he obtained your keys illegitimately?  Having
the keys provides prima facie evidence that he was authorized to enter
the house.

> Of course if there where some technical compromise disabling the need
> for the username/password then they whould be home free. But this
> technical compromise could also effect the message.

If they enter with a valid user name and password, then again that is
strong evidence that they were authorized to use the system.  The fact
that it may be due to the system owner's negligence won't help.

> Leaving the door open would mean not require a the user to enter there
> name and password.

No, there are many ways to leave open doors.  Someone who correctly
guesses a user name and password can walk through an open door.

-- 
Anthony


___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Anthony Atkielski]

Joshua Tinnin writes:

> You live life your way. Let others do the same.

They can do whatever they want, as long as they don't infringe upon my
own rights.

> I do not live my life in fear, but nor do I live it in an uninformed manner.

Fear has nothing to do with it.  It's a question of conscience, ethics,
and the Golden Rule.

> If you're serious about this, complaining to the main FreeBSD tech help
> list won't change anything. You need to do a massive, worldwide 
> campaign.

A single lawsuit could close down FreeBSD by eliminating most of its
assets.  I wouldn't want to see that happen.  It's unfortunate that some
people are stupid enough and stubborn enough to put the entire project
at risk.

> ... you can always unsubscribe ...

I've been considering that, since I don't really get much out of the
list.  I almost never get a useful answer to a question, for example.
But there is nothing else when it comes to FreeBSD--one of the
consequences of it being open-source.

-- 
Anthony


___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Timothy Smith]

Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Marc Fonvieille writes:
 

All, and I said "All", mailing list subscribing forms mention their
archives ("To see the collection of prior postings to the list, visit
the freebsd-blahblah Archives.").  It is impossible to miss it.
   

Then why do so many forms require that you tick a checkbox to assert
that you've read and accepted the terms on the page?
In any case, nothing like that exists for FreeBSD lists.
 

but you DO have to consent to the terms and conditions in to 
confirmation email that is sent to you, you have to repsond to this 
email. the actual mode of agreement is irrelivant
You can't claim your not bound by a contract just because you didn't read it
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

RE: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Alex
> de Kruijff
> Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2005 4:08 PM
> To: Chris Hodgins
> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
> Subject: Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!
>
>
> On Sat, May 07, 2005 at 04:05:09PM +0100, Chris Hodgins wrote:
> > This keeps coming up time and time again.  Why don't we simply put up
> > a message on the subscription page that says if you subscribe you
> > agree that your messages will be archived for public viewing.  End of
> > story.  No more bitchy emails on this subject, no more heated debates
> > and much more time devoted to talking about FreeBSD.
>

No, Chris, we don't want to do that.  If you put any kind of message like
that
on the website you are then implying that the users have copyrights in
the
first place on postings that they put on the mailing list.

Since what law there is supports the opposite assumption - that the
poster
has no copyright on the post made in this forum - you are far better
legally
by NOT putting such a disclaimer.

It is kind of like if you walk into a restaurant and pick up a fork and
stab yourself, then sue the restaurant claiming that they are negligent
in not warning you that their forks are sharp.  Today you don't see
warning
labels on forks because the law presumes that a fork is supposed to be
sharp,
and it presumes that anyone of legal age to enter a restaurant would know
this.  If restaurants all started slapping warning labels on their forks
then they would create a presumption that a normal fork is dull, and that
the sharp kind is unexpected.

Ted

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[vizion]

Twas said by " Bart Silverstrim" and my ignorance encourages me to join
the dialogue and say hey guys can this one be droppd -- my mail box is
getting overstuffed with this and it is now way off topic
Thanks
D



David Southwell  Ham call sign M0TAU
   Remove  nospamme_ from reply to ** 
   40 yrs navigating and computing in blue waters.
English Owner & Captain of British Registered 60' bluewater Ketch S/V
Taurus. Currently in San Diego, CA. Sailing May bound for Europe via
Panama Canal.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Bart Silverstrim]

On May 7, 2005, at 10:44 PM, Chris wrote:
Aaaarrggghhg
Isn't anyhing sacred anymore?!
Oh how I long for the Dos-dayz.
Whoa is mee
...licensed too.  Sorry.  You don't own it.
:-p
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Bart Silverstrim]

On May 7, 2005, at 6:35 PM, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Joshua Tinnin writes:
Then so is every single tech help list with public archives.
Yes.  The fact that certain infringing actions may take place with 
great
frequency does not make them any less infringing.
Fine.  Take them each to court.  See how long it lasts.
Really, if this bugs you this much, take it to court.  Take it to a 
lawyer.  See if they explain to you what fair use is.  See if implied 
consent is ever given, or the fact that these archives were no surprise 
if you actually followed directions.  See if ignorance is a true 
defense for lacking responsibility.

See if anyone would want to even take such a case when there's no 
monetary gain from it...especially since the spirit of copyright law is 
to protect your rights to make profit from your work (and/or prevent 
others from doing so at your expense).  How much money have you lost 
due to quoting and archiving?  Sure, people are laughing at you for 
holding doggedly to your viewpoint while ignoring things like fair use 
doctrine and the fact that you're not losing money and no one is making 
money off your posts, but hey, if you want to try it, go right on 
ahead.

Some of them have been in existence before the web. I can't figure out
why you keep harping on an issue like this that is not at all unique 
to
FreeBSD, nor even open source.
It's a matter of conscience and ethics.
What, that you didn't read the material in the FAQ before joining a 
group and now you're peeved that people can reference what you've 
asserted in the past to drudge up later?

There are SO MANY things in the US that go against good conscience and 
ethics.  Why don't you fight that instead of the possibility that 
someone could see your words in an archive and think that you look 
silly because of what you've said?  I would question the view from your 
moral high ground when you suggest using something like the DMCA to 
stop people from archiving someone's questions regarding kernel modules 
or getting sound to work.

If you're that worked up about it, maybe you should
A) read the FAQ and google for answers more often,
B) accept that archiving is a tool to help for future reference of 
questions
C) accept that archiving is the price you pay when you're imposing on 
other people to answer questions for you
D) unsubscribe and go away from the list if you're that irked.  Then 
you don't need to worry about this issue.  Stop emailing, stop posting 
on it.

You've continually ignored every point I brought up...fair use, implied 
consent, actually following the informal procedure of reading the 
handbook/FAQ/google results before subscribing, even the precedent set 
by just about every tech list I know of wherein posts are archived, I 
didn't even see (yet?) anyone comment on the .edu site I cited with a 
disclaimer saying that their archives fell within fair use.  You 
instead harp on your viewpoint as being right while dismissing anything 
else as "not tested in court".

I've addressed several of your points with counterpoints.  I recall 
little or none back other than dismissal.  I'll assume this means 
you're simply trolling.  Unless you're going to actually take this to a 
lawyer for a professional opinion or take a group to court, I suggest 
you...ahem...put up or shut up.

Why don't you head over to some other tech lists for a while
and complain about this?
I worry mainly about lists to which I subscribe.
Can someone unsubscribe Anthony so he need not worry about this list 
anymore?  He joined voluntarily, it's maintained by volunteers, and 
apparently he's not happy with the service, so let him be free to go 
somewhere else for help?

Yes, but you're not a lawyer, yet you persist in talking about these
matters as if you had some authority.
You're not a lawyer, either, as far as I know.
So, if you're both saying you require a lawyer to sort the issue out, 
you're wasting time in continuing the discussion.  You're saying you're 
not qualified to comment on it, no?

I hate to bring up the old cliche ... but, seriously, Anthony, most of
what you do here is spread:
Fear
Uncertainty
Doubt
Much of the prudence that lawful behavior demands is based on these.
That would explain some things.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Chris]

Bart Silverstrim wrote:
> 
> On May 7, 2005, at 6:18 PM, Chris wrote:
> 
>> Oh no!!!
>>
>> Fear?
>> Uncertainty?
>> Doubt?
>>
>> I guess OpenSource isnt the way to go. I guess FreeBSD isnt right for me.
>>
>> Oh no - Look at all this termoil...
>>
>> I guess I should just buy the Microsoft product so I won't violate
>> anything. Surely becasue if I pay for it - everything is Ok then.
>>
>> Oh no.
>>
>> 
> 
> 
> You can't BUY a Microsoft product.  You haven't read the EULA??  You
> only LICENSE it!
> 
> They can come in and demand you remove Windows from your computer
> whenever they want!  You don't OWN what is running on your computer...if
> it's running Windows! :-)
> 
> 
> 


Aaaarrggghhg

Isn't anyhing sacred anymore?!

Oh how I long for the Dos-dayz.

Whoa is mee

-- 
Best regards,
Chris

It is a simple task to make things complex, but a complex
task to make them simple.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Bart Silverstrim]

On May 7, 2005, at 6:18 PM, Chris wrote:
Oh no!!!
Fear?
Uncertainty?
Doubt?
I guess OpenSource isnt the way to go. I guess FreeBSD isnt right for 
me.

Oh no - Look at all this termoil...
I guess I should just buy the Microsoft product so I won't violate
anything. Surely becasue if I pay for it - everything is Ok then.
Oh no.

You can't BUY a Microsoft product.  You haven't read the EULA??  You 
only LICENSE it!

They can come in and demand you remove Windows from your computer 
whenever they want!  You don't OWN what is running on your 
computer...if it's running Windows! :-)

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Bart Silverstrim]

On May 7, 2005, at 1:53 PM, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Bart Silverstrim writes:
Dilemma...how do I get permission to quote you to reply to you?
You can e-mail me and ask.  However, backquoting of portions of a
message generally falls within the scope of fair use, IMO (IANAL).
Nope, because that assumes I have permission to quote ahead of time and 
I'd have an archive in my sent mail (and trash items) for a period of 
time that you didn't explicitly allow.  Chicken and the egg.  You 
should make a form available for printing and mailing back to you on 
your website to explicitly allow people to sign (in the presence of a 
witness) and mail in to ask for permission on a per-mail basis so as to 
allow proper archiving in my sent and trash items as well as quoting 
relevant materials.  Otherwise, I'm screwed legally because I'd be 
violating your IP rights and copyright.

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Alex de Kruijff]

On Sat, May 07, 2005 at 10:38:04AM +0200, Marc Fonvieille wrote:
> On Sat, May 07, 2005 at 02:49:23AM +0200, Alex de Kruijff wrote:
> > > 
> > > Well, the "Mailing lists" link on http://www.FreeBSD.org/ homepage
> > > points on
> > > http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/eresources.html#ERESOURCES-MAIL
> > 
> > That true and this would be a fine argument if this where the only way
> > to get the list adress. This isn't the case. Now it the warning you
> > get, afther you get before you are realy on the list, would point to
> > this stating it got the conditions then this would be a compelling
> > argument.
> >
> 
> All, and I said "All", mailing list subscribing forms mention their
> archives ("To see the collection of prior postings to the list, visit
> the freebsd-blahblah Archives.").  It is impossible to miss it.

I take you word for it. I didn't realy mean to fight this. More the
mirroring (excluded www.xx.freebsd.org) like google and such.

> Another thing, I do not really see many ways to discover the existence
> of a FreeBSD mailing list:
> 
> - from archives via google or the FreeBSD.org search system
> - from FreeBSD.org docs
> - from the www.FreeBSD.org front page
> - from a clairvoyant?
> 
> and these ways (at least most of them) clearly indicate the existence of
> archives.
> Anyway, it's just a false problem, it makes me think about a person
> going to a TV show then later refusing to have "his face" recorded and
> broadcasted...

Sending a mail to a maillinglist means sending thousend of copies to the
subscribers. This is a natural thing just like going on a TV show means
it going to be broadcast. But having it go into a archive is not a
natural thing. Thats way a user should be pointed to this. (As is the
case.) This is also true for the mirroring to other non freebsd related
sites like google. I beleave this is not the case.

-- 
Alex
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Alex de Kruijff]

On Sat, May 07, 2005 at 11:16:02AM -0400, Bart Silverstrim wrote:
> 
> On May 6, 2005, at 2:43 PM, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
> 
> >Roland Smith writes:
> >
> >>On the page where you subscribe to a mailing list there is a link to 
> >>the
> >>list archives. The existance to this link implies a public accessible
> >>archive of the list. If you don't like that, don't subscribe.
> >
> >You cannot be sure that subscribers have read it unless you require 
> >them
> >to take explicit action to confirm that they have read it.
> 
> Part of me likes that attitude.  You assume users are too stupid to use 
> computers even if they're trying to tackle FreeBSD.

I would use the word lazy. Yes the law assumes users are lazy.

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Alex de Kruijff]

On Sat, May 07, 2005 at 01:32:37PM +0200, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
> Alex de Kruijff writes:
> 
> > So? As long as your system is protected by a password nobody has a legal
> > defence.
> 
> Unfortunately they do.  For example, if they guess a user name and
> password and it works, they can enter your system and claim that they
> believed it was okay because nothing told them otherwise. You have to
> specifically advise them that they must be authorized, otherwise if they
> accidentally or deliberately enter the system through a technical
> compromise, they can defend themselves on this basis.

They can claim all they like, but that doesn't mean this hold up in
cord. In the Netherlands one who enters a protected system deliberate
and unlawful can get half a year of jail time and a fine of about two
thosend euro's. The law doesn't say anyting about warning that need to
be displayed. Lets say I've lost my key to my house and someone else
found it. This still doesn't give that person the right to use it to
gain access to my house.

Of course if there where some technical compromise disabling the need
for the username/password then they whould be home free. But this
technical compromise could also effect the message.

> > A admin that doesn't put up a warning like "breaking in is a criminal
> > act" is not at fault legaly or otherwise.
> 
> Not at fault, perhaps, but he does leave the door open to certain types
> of compromises.

Leaving the door open would mean not require a the user to enter there
name and password. 

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Alex de Kruijff]

On Sat, May 07, 2005 at 04:05:09PM +0100, Chris Hodgins wrote:
> This keeps coming up time and time again.  Why don't we simply put up
> a message on the subscription page that says if you subscribe you
> agree that your messages will be archived for public viewing.  End of
> story.  No more bitchy emails on this subject, no more heated debates
> and much more time devoted to talking about FreeBSD.

I agree with the outline of you message. But it does mather where the
text is placed. Someone else can also subscribe you. In such cases the
text is bypassed. Isn't there a mail send that you need to confirm. One
can reasanably asume that the owner have read this. The text it self of
a link to it whould be wise IMHO.

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Joshua Tinnin]

On Sat 7 May 05 15:35, Anthony Atkielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
> Joshua Tinnin writes:

> > I hate to bring up the old cliche ... but, seriously, Anthony, most
> > of what you do here is spread:
> >
> > Fear
> > Uncertainty
> > Doubt
>
> Much of the prudence that lawful behavior demands is based on these.

You live life your way. Let others do the same. I do not live my life in 
fear, but nor do I live it in an uninformed manner.

If you're serious about this, complaining to the main FreeBSD tech help 
list won't change anything. You need to do a massive, worldwide 
campaign. This could be the next Napster ... just think about it. Now, 
go out and hire a lawyer on contingency who's crazy enough to take the 
case, and go make some waves. But, please, stop with the constant flow 
of this ... stuff, at least on this list, ok? It's getting old, and 
it's going nowhere, in case you haven't noticed. If it concerns you 
that much, you can always unsubscribe (ah, but it's never enough to 
cause that, as it's just too much fun to be the gadfly, isn't it?).

- jt
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Anthony Atkielski]

Joshua Tinnin writes:

> Then so is every single tech help list with public archives.

Yes.  The fact that certain infringing actions may take place with great
frequency does not make them any less infringing.

> Some of them have been in existence before the web. I can't figure out
> why you keep harping on an issue like this that is not at all unique to
> FreeBSD, nor even open source.

It's a matter of conscience and ethics.

> Why don't you head over to some other tech lists for a while
> and complain about this?

I worry mainly about lists to which I subscribe.

> Say, have you read over the legal documents pertaining to when DejaNews
> and later Google archived Usenet?

Yes, long ago.

> It would be educational for you to peruse them.

It was.

> Yes, but you're not a lawyer, yet you persist in talking about these
> matters as if you had some authority.

You're not a lawyer, either, as far as I know.

> I hate to bring up the old cliche ... but, seriously, Anthony, most of
> what you do here is spread:
>
> Fear
> Uncertainty
> Doubt

Much of the prudence that lawful behavior demands is based on these.

-- 
Anthony


___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Chris]

Joshua Tinnin wrote:
> On Sat 7 May 05 15:01, Anthony Atkielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> wrote:
> 
>>Joshua Tinnin writes:

... Snip

> I hate to bring up the old cliche ... but, seriously, Anthony, most of 
> what you do here is spread:
> 
> Fear
> Uncertainty
> Doubt

Oh no!!!

Fear?
Uncertainty?
Doubt?

I guess OpenSource isnt the way to go. I guess FreeBSD isnt right for me.

Oh no - Look at all this termoil...

I guess I should just buy the Microsoft product so I won't violate
anything. Surely becasue if I pay for it - everything is Ok then.

Oh no.




-- 
Best regards,
Chris

The faster the plane,
the narrower the seats.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Joshua Tinnin]

On Sat 7 May 05 15:01, Anthony Atkielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
> Joshua Tinnin writes:
> > Where is the infringement here?
>
> Reproducing a copyrighted work without permission.

Then so is every single tech help list with public archives. Or every 
single email list with public archives. I'm subscribed personally to 
scores of them, and those lists are a tiny fraction of all of them. 
Some of them have been in existence before the web. I can't figure out 
why you keep harping on an issue like this that is not at all unique to 
FreeBSD, nor even open source. Why don't you head over to some other 
tech lists for a while and complain about this?

Say, have you read over the legal documents pertaining to when DejaNews 
and later Google archived Usenet? It would be educational for you to 
peruse them.

> > Have you spoken to an actual lawyer about this issue? I have. Guess
> > what he said?
>
> I prefer not to guess.  Invite him here.
>
> In any case, lawyers don't decide what is or isn't infringement;
> courts do.  And in the world of IP, it's often a roll of the dice.

Yes, but you're not a lawyer, yet you persist in talking about these 
matters as if you had some authority.

I hate to bring up the old cliche ... but, seriously, Anthony, most of 
what you do here is spread:

Fear
Uncertainty
Doubt

Anyway, I'll leave you guessing at what he said. But, just to give you a 
hint, he was laughing when he said it.

- jt
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Anthony Atkielski]

Joshua Tinnin writes:

> Where is the infringement here?

Reproducing a copyrighted work without permission.

> Have you spoken to an actual lawyer about this issue? I have. Guess what
> he said?

I prefer not to guess.  Invite him here.

In any case, lawyers don't decide what is or isn't infringement; courts
do.  And in the world of IP, it's often a roll of the dice.

-- 
Anthony


___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Joshua Tinnin]

On Sat 7 May 05 10:39, Anthony Atkielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:

> For those of us with ethics and conscience, registration is
> irrelevant. We do not refrain from infringement out of fear of
> prosecution, we refrain because infringement is wrong.

Where is the infringement here?

Have you spoken to an actual lawyer about this issue? I have. Guess what 
he said?

- jt
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Juha Saarinen]

On 5/8/05, Chris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> Anthony Atkielski wrote:
> 

 

OK, this is arguably Anthony's best-ever troll, and ranks pretty highly when 
compared to past list trolling. 

Could someone give the man an award for his achievements and then let's kill 
this useless mega-thread.


-- 

Juha
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

RE: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Fafa Hafiz Krantz]

Chris, I'm surprised at you!  Why did you pass up the opportunity to
forge
Fafa's name as the sender, to illustrate the point to the
clueless better. ;-)

Oh dear, I guess I'm gonna get sued for identity theft!! ;-)

Ted, forging Fafa.

> -Original Message-
> From: Chris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2005 2:05 PM
> To: Ted Mittelstaedt
> Cc: Fafa Hafiz Krantz; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!
>
>
> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> >
> >>-Original Message-
> >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Fafa Hafiz
> >>Krantz
> >>Sent: Friday, May 06, 2005 3:40 AM
> >>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>Subject: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Hello.
> >>
> >>I have a big problem. My privacy has been violated.
> >>
> >>I had no idea when I first started writing posts to the FreeBSD
> >>mailinglist that it would be archived, let alone indexed by Google
> >>so that the world can spy on my words.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Looks like you aren't acquainted with the legal doctrine of
> > Fair Use.  Guess you will have to start using some other name
> > online, since there's no way to prove that any of these alleged
> > posts your claiming are violated, were in fact, actually made
> > by the real Fafa Hafiz Krantz.
> >
> > Ted
>
> Awe Ted ... Yer a spoil-sport *laffs*
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Chris
>
> Real programmers know what saad means.
>

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Chris]

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> 
>>-Original Message-
>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Fafa Hafiz
>>Krantz
>>Sent: Friday, May 06, 2005 3:40 AM
>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Subject: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!
>>
>>
>>
>>Hello.
>>
>>I have a big problem. My privacy has been violated.
>>
>>I had no idea when I first started writing posts to the FreeBSD
>>mailinglist that it would be archived, let alone indexed by Google
>>so that the world can spy on my words.
>>
> 
> 
> Looks like you aren't acquainted with the legal doctrine of 
> Fair Use.  Guess you will have to start using some other name
> online, since there's no way to prove that any of these alleged
> posts your claiming are violated, were in fact, actually made
> by the real Fafa Hafiz Krantz.
> 
> Ted

Awe Ted ... Yer a spoil-sport *laffs*


-- 
Best regards,
Chris

Real programmers know what saad means.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

RE: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Fafa Hafiz
> Krantz
> Sent: Friday, May 06, 2005 3:40 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!
> 
> 
> 
> Hello.
> 
> I have a big problem. My privacy has been violated.
> 
> I had no idea when I first started writing posts to the FreeBSD
> mailinglist that it would be archived, let alone indexed by Google
> so that the world can spy on my words.
> 

Looks like you aren't acquainted with the legal doctrine of 
Fair Use.  Guess you will have to start using some other name
online, since there's no way to prove that any of these alleged
posts your claiming are violated, were in fact, actually made
by the real Fafa Hafiz Krantz.

Ted
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

RE: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Chris
> Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2005 11:46 AM
> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
> Subject: Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!
>
>
> Anthony Atkielski wrote:
> > Chris writes:
> >
> >
> >>If thats what it comes down to - then sending emails, lists,
> bloggs, etc
> >>are all willfull violations of copyright - Oh no - where do you
> >>draw the line!!!
> >
> >
> > Some are, some aren't.
> >
>
> This whole thing is silly (the isues at hand, meaning -
> copyright/FBSD-list/Google).
>
> You see - if you post on the FBSD list, even if it does not get access
> at all by anyone (meaning Google) its still public

No, it's not.  But, neither is it private.

Electronic mailing lists, website blogs, and such, are all lumped into
that wonderfully grey area of "there ain't no caselaw on this yet"

The world's legal community doesen't really know exactly what to do
with them at this point.  These medium wern't addressed during the last
Berne convention.  The closest they got was:

"The expression "literary and artistic works" shall include every
production in the literary, scientific and artistic domain, whatever may
be the mode or form of its expression, such as books, pamphlets and other
writings; lectures, addresses, sermons and other works of the same
nature..
...It shall, however, be a matter for legislation in the countries of the
Union to prescribe that works in general or any specified categories of
works shall not be protected unless they have been fixed in some material
formThe protection of this Convention shall not apply to news of the
day or to miscellaneous facts having the character of mere items of press
information"

So, you see, going strictly by Berne you can punch holes in it as such:

1) a mailing list posting particularly a response to a question, isn't a
"work"
2) "other writings" the act of e-mail isn't "writing" at least under the
United
States, because if it was, then the DMCA would be invalidated under First
Amendment
3) Few countries have passed any kinds of laws specifying that e-mail is
or isn't
a protected work
4) Posts on a mailing list, particularly as they normally have little
applicability
to the long term, are much more in the area of "news of the day" or
"miscellaneous
facts"

And of course, a countries national laws override Berne at all times.
And as the
countries of the world have a tremendous mismatch of laws regarding the
Internet
at this time, what is legal one place isn't elsewhere, and one countries
laws aren't
enforceable on another country.

And this isn't even addressing the legal doctorine of Fair Use which
already applies
in most of these cases and would override any of the rediculous
speculation on this that has been posted already.

Ted

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Chris]

Anthony Atkielski wrote:
> Chris writes:
> 
> 
>>If thats what it comes down to - then sending emails, lists, bloggs, etc
>>are all willfull violations of copyright - Oh no - where do you
>>draw the line!!!
> 
> 
> Some are, some aren't.
> 

This whole thing is silly (the isues at hand, meaning -
copyright/FBSD-list/Google).

You see - if you post on the FBSD list, even if it does not get access
at all by anyone (meaning Google) its still public because someone goes
to the FBSD site, searches the archieves - and bingo, I can see a bunch
of posts by anyone or anything that made it to the list.

The point is - its public. Anyone can access it. Now, what's the diff if
you get to it via Google or the FreeBSD site itself?

Isnt it still public? The only that has changed, is that you need to go
to the FBSD site, and search for it yourself.

I really don't see the diff on this. Public is public. Unless someone
knows of a meaning other then that.

Or - unless you pull a statement like: it depends on what the meaning
is, is.






-- 
Best regards,
Chris

If you have watched a TV series only once, and you watch
it again, it will be a rerun of the same episode.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Anthony Atkielski]

Chris writes:

> If thats what it comes down to - then sending emails, lists, bloggs, etc
> are all willfull violations of copyright - Oh no - where do you
> draw the line!!!

Some are, some aren't.

-- 
Anthony


___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[John Pettitt]

Chris wrote:

>Nobody can reply to, reproduce, referance, show, etc. this email without
>written consent be my.
>  
>
The courts, wisely, have declined to say quoting a set amount is ok or
define any other bright line test. 

Since there is no "bright line" test for fair use it comes down to is is
reasonable to quote for one of the reasons supported by the fair use
doctrine.In this case criticism.  There are plenty of decisions
supporting taking a small part of a work and quoting it for critical
purposes - in trying to negate that right you are fighting an uphill
battle that has little probability of prevailing in court.   Further in
asking that your post not be referenced you are trying to impose private
censorship - there is no provision of copyright law (or any other law)
that prohibits referencing another work (as my satirical post yesterday
pointed out).  Lastly by trying to prohibit people from showing your
post you are trying to invoke a trade secret relationship where no
contractual basis exists.

In other words your post is basically BS and wouldn't stand up to a
first year law student on a bad day.

John

 

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Chris]

Anthony Atkielski wrote:
> Bart Silverstrim writes:
> 
> 
>>Dilemma...how do I get permission to quote you to reply to you?
> 
> 
> You can e-mail me and ask.  However, backquoting of portions of a
> message generally falls within the scope of fair use, IMO (IANAL).
> 

Here - let's do this.

Nobody can reply to, reproduce, referance, show, etc. this email without
written consent be my.

Now - Anthony, are you gonna reply to this? in email? in the list? If so
- you are violating the copyright.

-- 
Best regards,
Chris

He who marries for money ... better be nice to his wife.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Chris]

Anthony Atkielski wrote:
> Bart Silverstrim writes:
> 
> 
>>Dilemma...how do I get permission to quote you to reply to you?
> 
> 
> You can e-mail me and ask.  However, backquoting of portions of a
> message generally falls within the scope of fair use, IMO (IANAL).
> 

If thats what it comes down to - then sending emails, lists, bloggs, etc
 are all willfull violations of copyright - Oh no - where do you
draw the line!!!

-- 
Best regards,
Chris

He who marries for money ... better be nice to his wife.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Anthony Atkielski]

Bart Silverstrim writes:

> Dilemma...how do I get permission to quote you to reply to you?

You can e-mail me and ask.  However, backquoting of portions of a
message generally falls within the scope of fair use, IMO (IANAL).

-- 
Anthony


___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Chris]

Anthony Atkielski wrote:
> Chris writes:
> 
> 
>>... in order for someone to "claim" a violation of copyright, it MUST
>>be registered with the copyright office (at least here in the States).
> 
> 
> For civil procedures involving works of U.S. origin, yes. But you don't
> have to register way in advance, you only have to register before the
> suit is filed.
> 
> 
>>In your postings Anthony, you touch on everything before that very
>>important point, AND after. You never once mention the fact that a
>>person NEEDS to take that one extra step.
> 
> 
> All of this is irrelevant to the fact that posts are copyrighted by
> their authors, with or without registration.
> 
> 
>>So, in my view - this makes the whole issue (and thread) pointless
>>unless someone has taken that one, last step.
> 
> 
> You're saying that you ignore the law unless someone forces you to obey
> it.  Infringement of copyrights that are unregistered is just as real as
> infringement of copyrights that are registered. It is just as dishonest,
> illegal, and unethical.
> 
> 
>>There is simply no point in arguing this UNLESS you can PROVE that you
>>have filed the paperwork to actually allow you to force the law to
>>look into copyright infringement.
> 
> 
> For those of us with ethics and conscience, registration is irrelevant.
> We do not refrain from infringement out of fear of prosecution, we
> refrain because infringement is wrong.
> 
> 
>>End of discussion. Now - for those that are bitching that they feel they
>>have been violated, PROVE to us that YOU filed for the copyright, else -
>>get a life or remove yourself from the list.
> 
> 
> Be careful what you write. It looks like you're saying that you're aware
> of the infringement and acknowledge it, but you just don't care, which
> makes the infingement willful and malicious. You're essentially saying
> "I'll do what I want, and if you don't like it, come and get me," which
> can be very unpleasant if someone takes you up on the offer.
> 

No Anthony - you miss my point completly. The point that "I'm" making is
that I could care less what I write in a public forum (such as this
list), even tho "I" have the copyright on what I post.

If I have something that I don't people to hear or know - I simply don't
post such information.  Plain and simple. That's just common sence - and
it appears that there is a lacking of it in todays society.



-- 
Best regards,
Chris

Everything happens at the same time with nothing in between.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Anthony Atkielski]

Chris Hodgins writes:

> This keeps coming up time and time again.  Why don't we simply put up
> a message on the subscription page that says if you subscribe you
> agree that your messages will be archived for public viewing.  End of
> story.  No more bitchy emails on this subject, no more heated debates
> and much more time devoted to talking about FreeBSD.

I agree.  The text should be reviewed by a lawyer, and the subscription
process must be designed such that it is impossible to subscribe without
explicitly accepting the conditions (by clicking a box, or something).

Note that this will apply only to new subscribers, not existing
subscribers, for whom the problem remains.  Also, you must make it clear
in the conditions whether or not posts will be archived even after a
member of the list unsubscribes.

-- 
Anthony


___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Anthony Atkielski]

Chris writes:

> ... in order for someone to "claim" a violation of copyright, it MUST
> be registered with the copyright office (at least here in the States).

For civil procedures involving works of U.S. origin, yes. But you don't
have to register way in advance, you only have to register before the
suit is filed.

> In your postings Anthony, you touch on everything before that very
> important point, AND after. You never once mention the fact that a
> person NEEDS to take that one extra step.

All of this is irrelevant to the fact that posts are copyrighted by
their authors, with or without registration.

> So, in my view - this makes the whole issue (and thread) pointless
> unless someone has taken that one, last step.

You're saying that you ignore the law unless someone forces you to obey
it.  Infringement of copyrights that are unregistered is just as real as
infringement of copyrights that are registered. It is just as dishonest,
illegal, and unethical.

> There is simply no point in arguing this UNLESS you can PROVE that you
> have filed the paperwork to actually allow you to force the law to
> look into copyright infringement.

For those of us with ethics and conscience, registration is irrelevant.
We do not refrain from infringement out of fear of prosecution, we
refrain because infringement is wrong.

> End of discussion. Now - for those that are bitching that they feel they
> have been violated, PROVE to us that YOU filed for the copyright, else -
> get a life or remove yourself from the list.

Be careful what you write. It looks like you're saying that you're aware
of the infringement and acknowledge it, but you just don't care, which
makes the infingement willful and malicious. You're essentially saying
"I'll do what I want, and if you don't like it, come and get me," which
can be very unpleasant if someone takes you up on the offer.

-- 
Anthony


___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Bart Silverstrim]

On May 7, 2005, at 7:15 AM, Alex de Kruijff wrote:
On Sat, May 07, 2005 at 11:45:35AM +0200, X3K6A2 wrote:
Marc Fonvieille writes:

All, and I said "All", mailing list subscribing forms mention their
archives ("To see the collection of prior postings to the list, 
visit
the freebsd-blahblah Archives.").  It is impossible to miss it.

Then why do so many forms require that you tick a checkbox to assert
that you've read and accepted the terms on the page?

In any case, nothing like that exists for FreeBSD lists.
To make sure, that even the most dangerous people, to the society 
accept
the fact, that they need to think for them self.
How can one logicaly conclude that a message they send to the list is
included in google and other websites?
Hmm...Googling for the mailing list name?  Or Googling for what you're 
having a problem with in the first place...you know, what is advised as 
a good first step in the first place...and seeing, in the results, 
messages contained in the archives?  I'd normally stop and think that 
maybe that would mean that postings would appear in the archive.  Some 
people apparently wouldn't put 2 and 2 together and need to resort to 
hiding behind legalese to protect themselves from the onslaught of 
common sense or personal responsibility.

The damage of a lawsuite can be large to the BSD society. Just look at
what happend when the AT&T and BSD where involved in one. Is this one
reason realy that strong to risk this?
You mean the one that set the precedents to allow FreeBSD to exist 
today?

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Bart Silverstrim]

On May 6, 2005, at 8:17 PM, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Absolutely! Copyright doesn't protect anyone from making a fool out
of themselves.
So I see.  But that is not the purpose of copyright.
Proven time and time again :-)
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Bart Silverstrim]

On May 6, 2005, at 8:14 PM, Chris wrote:
Hahaha - good stuff! Yanno, last I knew (and that was some time ago) 
You
had to submit writings for review to the copyright folks here in the 
U.S.

Then, if they deem it so, you then had to pay a fee to have it
copyrighted.  As I said - this may or may not be the case any longer, I
didn't know that just by writing something, you were grandted all the
nifty perks of it being copywritten. Then again - I'm not a lawyer. And
to be frank, I couldn't care less either.
No, when you write something, it's copyrighted automatically.  There 
are steps you can take to help make your case stronger if you think 
someone will steal your work (mailing yourself a sealed copy so it'll 
be dated by the post office, for example), but if you write it and it's 
your work you have the copyright on it automatically.

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Bart Silverstrim]

On May 6, 2005, at 3:53 PM, Paul Schmehl wrote:
I doubt seriously your *extremely* strict interpretation of copyright 
would hold up in any court of law in the US or anywhere else for that 
matter.  I have no doubt that you could find a judge somewhere to rule 
in your favor. After all, judges make incredibly stupid rulings daily. 
 But in the end, your argument would fall on deaf ears when saner 
minds were engaged.
It would fall under fair use.  While the interpretation would allow 
leeway, I don't think any reasonable, sane person would have an 
expectation of privacy for posting to a technical mailing list that has 
references to the archives in a medium where quoting your material is 
expected in due course of discussion, and no one is profiting from your 
work and you're not being deprived of income because of it.

Although I do think these posts are copyrighted...you just have an 
implied consent for certain uses.  If I give a long explanation on how 
some particular technology works, you can't copy it and paste it into a 
book you're writing without my permission, and the existence of my 
posts on the archives would give me ammunition against you.

The most laughable part...the archives actually help enforce the 
copyrights he claims are being trodden on.

When you post to a public list, your post are not copyrighted 
material. They exist in the public domain.  And *this* list *is* a 
public forum.
Publicly accessible, but you still own your words.  I think I already 
posted some links that talk about copyright, but wikipedia has a nice 
summary.  Electronic formats like web pages and such are still 
copyrighted because they can take a tangible form (printed out, video 
taped, etc.).  At least, that's my understanding.

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Bart Silverstrim]

On May 6, 2005, at 2:50 PM, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Al Johnsonn writes:
This advice is more ridiculous than telling him to put aerosol spray 
back
into a can.
Where's the flaw in it?  That's what the DMCA is for.
Betwen this and the claim about "stopping traffic in third party non-US 
sites because it goes through US servers", I think there are enough 
grounds to conclude that Anthony may be insane.  Or a Vogon.  He seems 
to actually believe the DMCA is meant to help the average citizens 
against big mean bullying corporations.  :-)

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Bart Silverstrim]

On May 6, 2005, at 2:48 PM, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Paul Schmehl writes:
Before you start spouting legal advice on a public list, I would 
suggest
that you point to chapter and verse that *specifically* addresses 
posts
made to a public forum that *explicitly* states that such posts will 
be
archived and *explicitly* states that you have the right to request 
their
removal *and* the right to sue if the archiving party refuses to 
remove
them.  Furthermore, you must first prove that post made to a public 
forum
are protected by copyright laws.
Any creative work fixed in a tangible medium is protected by copyright
by default.  Any form of reproduction of a copyrighted work requires 
the
permission of its creator, _except_ as otherwise provided by law.
That's the way the law is written.  No exceptions are made for archival
of mailing lists in publicly accessible archives (nor for any other use
of messages to mailing lists, AFAIK).
Maybe you should look at the definition of Fair Use, especially 
balanced against what copyright was meant to protect...namely the 
author's ability to profit.  The archives aren't preventing the author 
from profiting and they aren't profiting from someone else's work...

Look at the disclaimer for the ARCHIVE at 
archives.econ.utah.edu/archives .

How about nobody talk to you anymore because they need a consent form 
to quote you in their replies?  Would that help?  That way people on 
the list could only respond to people that are slightly more 
reasonable... :-)

Dilemma...how do I get permission to quote you to reply to you?  I 
can't quote your message back to you to ask for permission for fear of 
breaching your copyright, and I can't just send you my own words alone 
without reference...then you might not know what I was referring to, 
which is clearly not allowable since it isn't legally specific enough 
to get permission to answer what it is you wanted answered.

Wait...are you a Vogon?
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Roland Smith]

On Sat, May 07, 2005 at 04:05:09PM +0100, Chris Hodgins wrote:
> This keeps coming up time and time again.  Why don't we simply put up
> a message on the subscription page that says if you subscribe you
> agree that your messages will be archived for public viewing.  

Maybe it should be in the mailing-list FAQ then? I agree that a
reference to the FAQ on the subscription page might be a good idea.

> End of story. No more bitchy emails on this subject, no more heated
> debates and much more time devoted to talking about FreeBSD.

Amazingly, bogofilter(1) rightly disposed of most of this thread for me.

Roland
-- 
R.F.Smith (http://www.xs4all.nl/~rsmith/) Please send e-mail as plain text.
public key: http://www.xs4all.nl/~rsmith/pubkey.txt


pgpYJokINWHsd.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Bart Silverstrim]

On May 6, 2005, at 2:43 PM, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Roland Smith writes:
On the page where you subscribe to a mailing list there is a link to 
the
list archives. The existance to this link implies a public accessible
archive of the list. If you don't like that, don't subscribe.
You cannot be sure that subscribers have read it unless you require 
them
to take explicit action to confirm that they have read it.
Part of me likes that attitude.  You assume users are too stupid to use 
computers even if they're trying to tackle FreeBSD.

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Bart Silverstrim]

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 goe

Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Chris Hodgins]

This keeps coming up time and time again.  Why don't we simply put up
a message on the subscription page that says if you subscribe you
agree that your messages will be archived for public viewing.  End of
story.  No more bitchy emails on this subject, no more heated debates
and much more time devoted to talking about FreeBSD.

Chris
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Bart Silverstrim]

On May 6, 2005, at 2:35 PM, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Bart Silverstrim writes:
A) You sent messages to unknown hundreds or thousands of people on the
mailing list, all of which could have a cached copy of your messages,
and now wonder about privacy?
I've explained the differences before; perhaps I need to explain them
again.
When you sign up to a mailing list, you implicitly give permission to
distribute your posts to other members of the list.  You do _not_ give
permission to have your posts archived, and you do _not_ give 
permission
to have your posts published and made accessible to people who are not
on the list.
The point is privacy.  You complain at a lack of privacy after sending 
messages to an unknown number of strangers to begin with.  And because 
it's a technical forum, anyone who spends ten minutes of research after 
wondering about it will know about the archives, especially since the 
defacto answer for some on this list is READ THE ARCHIVES.  It ranks 
right up there with "READ THE HANDBOOK".

If you don't like it, unsubscribe and chalk it up to experience.  
Otherwise, you're just trolling or bitching to bitch about something.  
This falls under fair use.

And it's just idiotic to send messages to all these anonymous people 
only later to complain about privacy loss.  You're sending information 
to strangers over a mailing list.  Is there something wrong with you?  
Your issue isn't archiving and searchability...this isn't a chatlist.  
Anyone who does even a HINT of looking around before belching a 
question to the list knows about the mailing list archives.  What did 
you THINK was going to happen?  That your posts wouldn't get put into 
the archives because you're special?

Let's see...www.freebsd.org...mailing lists...It says, clear as day, 
"Before posting to any list, please learn about how to best use the 
mailing lists, such as how to help avoid frequently-repeated 
discussions, by reading the Mailing List Frequently Asked Questions 
(FAQ) document."  From there, it has as a QUESTION are the ARCHIVES 
AVAILABLE.  YES.  It gives the link.  The entire tone of the document 
talks of openness and sharing.  WHY WOULDN'T THAT MEAN IT IS SEARCHABLE 
BY SEARCH ENGINES??  It's supposed to give answers to people's 
questions on the OS.  Apparently you seem to think this is some kind of 
shadow cabal that conspires to keep noobs out of the ivory towers, 
implied by your "I want to ask people to volunteer their time to help 
me with my questions but DON'T TELL ANYONE I didn't know the answer in 
the future" type of attitude you're conveying.

Hmm...could it be that people aren't actually taking five minutes to 
read material before barreling through and belching the question on the 
forefront of their mind?  Hmm...

B) The archives are searchable and referenced, and you claim you 
didn't
know that despite the number of self appointed upper-echelons that
reply with a curt "Look in the archives" type answer?
It has to be part of the confirmation process.  You have to require 
that
members accept these terms in order to subscribe.
Are you daft?  How many people read the EULA on the software they think 
they own?  You honestly think they're going to read some "legalese" 
disclaimer on a subscription list?  People are volunteering their time 
and experience to help people out here.  Above, I outlined the process 
you get to sign up to a mailing list right from the FreeBSD list.  Any 
idiot could have found it if they can read English.  It stated the 
answers to this right there.  In fact, if you follow the directions and 
actually read the material it told you to, it stated the material there 
that your messages would get archived.

On top of that, it's a technical mailing list.  It's IMPLIED, if you 
have been a sysadmin or technologist for more than a month and on the 
Internet as a sysadmin for more than a month.  You should KNOW this by 
then.

Do you really think that software companies and major Web sites have
those little check boxes that say "I accept" just for decoration?
You mean opt-ins?  Those are the only ones I've run across.  Check 
boxes for EULAs or agreements that the vast majority of people don't 
bloody READ because it is full of legalese.  It's questionable now if 
EULAs are even fully enforceable.  One company put in a reward if you 
read their EULA and told them you found the monetary reward part.  It 
took months for someone to notice it.

I just outlined the follow-the-lines for signing up for the mailing 
list...you know, the links that tell you to check the FAQ first, where 
it tells you about the archives?  Obviously you didn't read it or 
didn't comprehend it to now complain that your messages are archived.

C) Your words are being re-mirrored by being embedded inside other
posts that REPLY to your messages.  You honestly think that a 
volunteer
is going to delete your messages AND all messages referencing your
name?
You don't need a volunteer, you just need software to

Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Halldor R. Haflidason]

On Sat, May 07, 2005 at 06:10:00AM -0500, Fafa Hafiz Krantz wrote:

> Fafa has already been threatened with his doom.
> Some members on this list, it seems, ain't got no heart.

It always strikes me as odd when people refer to them self in 3d person.
Anyhow, as many have said before me, I think that when you send mail to
a public mailing list, you have to see that every mailing list (that at
least I know of) is archived and open, I have always been thankful of
that since when I have to find the solution to some problem related to
freebsd more often than not I find my answer in one of those archives,
would be sad if issues like this forced them to be 'off limits'.

Dóri
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Chris]

Anthony Atkielski wrote:
> Marc Fonvieille writes:
> 
> 
>>All, and I said "All", mailing list subscribing forms mention their
>>archives ("To see the collection of prior postings to the list, visit
>>the freebsd-blahblah Archives.").  It is impossible to miss it.
> 
> 
> Then why do so many forms require that you tick a checkbox to assert
> that you've read and accepted the terms on the page?
> 
> In any case, nothing like that exists for FreeBSD lists.
> 

Anthony,

As I mentioned (and clearly corrected myself too),
While it's true that there is an implyied copyright on the writtings, as
 I posted in my correction, and in the URL I posted too - in order for
someone to "claim" a violation of copyright, it MUST be registered with
the copyright office (at least here in the States). Once that is public
record (the official filling) THEN, and only then, the person has the
right to make a claim against a copyright violation.

In your postings Anthony, you touch on everything before that very
important point, AND after. You never once mention the fact that a
person NEEDS to take that one extra step.

So, in my view - this makes the whole issue (and thread) pointless
unless someone has taken that one, last step.

Now - this thread needs to end, or be moved to the proper list.
There is simply no point in arguing this UNLESS you can PROVE that you
have filed the paperwork to actually allow you to force the law to look
into copyright infringement.

So - allow me to quote one last time why you MUST file it.

"Registration and the Copyright Process
The way in which copyright protection is secured is frequently
misunderstood. Copyright is secured automatically when the work is
created. A work is "created" when it is fixed into a book, tape or
electronic medium for the first time. Thus, for example, a song can be
fixed in sheet music or in a digital tape, or both. No publication,
registration or other action in the U.S. Copyright Office is required to
secure copyright. However, in order to enforce the copyright and for
many other practical reasons, it will be necessary to register the
copyright with the U.S. Copyright Office.

Some of the advantages of registering a copyright are the following:

* Registration establishes a public record of the copyright claim.
* Before an infringement suit may be filed in court, registration is
necessary for works of U. S. origin.
* If made before or within 5 years of publication, registration
establishes sufficient evidence in court concerning the validity of the
copyright and the facts stated in the copyright certificate.
* If registration is made within 3 months after publication of the
work or prior to an infringement of the work, statutory damages and
attorney's fees will be available to the copyright owner in court
actions. Otherwise, only an award of actual damages and profits is
available to the copyright owner.
* Registration allows the owner of the copyright to record the
registration with the U.S. Customs Service for protection against the
importation of infringing copies."

http://www.legalzoom.com/law_library/copyrights/registration.html

End of discussion. Now - for those that are bitching that they feel they
have been violated, PROVE to us that YOU filed for the copyright, else -
get a life or remove yourself from the list.

Over and out


-- 
Best regards,
Chris

Whatever can go to New York, will.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Anthony Atkielski]

Alex de Kruijff writes:

> So? As long as your system is protected by a password nobody has a legal
> defence.

Unfortunately they do.  For example, if they guess a user name and
password and it works, they can enter your system and claim that they
believed it was okay because nothing told them otherwise.  You have to
specifically advise them that they must be authorized, otherwise if they
accidentally or deliberately enter the system through a technical
compromise, they can defend themselves on this basis.

> A admin that doesn't put up a warning like "breaking in is a criminal
> act" is not at fault legaly or otherwise.

Not at fault, perhaps, but he does leave the door open to certain types
of compromises.  Windows NT was developed with a specific OS feature to
provide for this: it displays site-selected text at logon time and
requies that the user click to acknowledge the text before logging in
successfully.  A great many organizations use this feature.

-- 
Anthony


___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Alex de Kruijff]

On Sat, May 07, 2005 at 11:45:35AM +0200, X3K6A2 wrote:
> > Marc Fonvieille writes:
> 
> >> All, and I said "All", mailing list subscribing forms mention their
> >> archives ("To see the collection of prior postings to the list, visit
> >> the freebsd-blahblah Archives.").  It is impossible to miss it.
> 
> > Then why do so many forms require that you tick a checkbox to assert
> > that you've read and accepted the terms on the page?
> 
> > In any case, nothing like that exists for FreeBSD lists.
> 
> To make sure, that even the most dangerous people, to the society accept
> the fact, that they need to think for them self.

How can one logicaly conclude that a message they send to the list is
included in google and other websites?

The damage of a lawsuite can be large to the BSD society. Just look at
what happend when the AT&T and BSD where involved in one. Is this one
reason realy that strong to risk this?

-- 
Alex

Please copy the original recipients, otherwise I may not read your reply.
WWW: http://www.kruijff.org/alex/FreeBSD/
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Fafa Hafiz Krantz]

> If only I was all of them. Point being, you're gonna make it, you'll
> survive. Enjoy the publicity, I'm sure you'll have the tabloids
> calling to ask who The GREAT FAFA is.

Hehe :)

I go under many names.

> I'm kinda forced to laugh about people suggesting the use of DMCA and
> other copyright laws/methods to force Fafa to disappear off the face
> of google.

Fafa has already been threatened with his doom.
Some members on this list, it seems, ain't got no heart.

--

Fafa Hafiz Krantz
  Research Designer @ http://www.home.no/barbershop
  Enlightened @ http://www.home.no/barbershop/smart/sharon.pdf


-- 
___
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Alex de Kruijff]

On Sat, May 07, 2005 at 04:44:16AM +0200, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
> Alex de Kruijff writes:
> 
> > Where these persons prosecuted lately?
> 
> No.  The first I heard of these problems was probably a good 20 years
> ago or so, and they probably predated that.  Nevertheless, it is
> standard practice to include such warnings today.

So? As long as your system is protected by a password nobody has a legal
defence. A admin that doesn't put up a warning like "breaking in is a
criminal act" is not at fault legaly or otherwise.

-- 
Alex

Please copy the original recipients, otherwise I may not read your reply.
WWW: http://www.kruijff.org/alex/FreeBSD/
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Anthony Atkielski]

Marc Fonvieille writes:

> All, and I said "All", mailing list subscribing forms mention their
> archives ("To see the collection of prior postings to the list, visit
> the freebsd-blahblah Archives.").  It is impossible to miss it.

Then why do so many forms require that you tick a checkbox to assert
that you've read and accepted the terms on the page?

In any case, nothing like that exists for FreeBSD lists.

-- 
Anthony


___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Marc Fonvieille]

On Sat, May 07, 2005 at 02:49:23AM +0200, Alex de Kruijff wrote:
> > 
> > Well, the "Mailing lists" link on http://www.FreeBSD.org/ homepage
> > points on
> > http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/eresources.html#ERESOURCES-MAIL
> 
> That true and this would be a fine argument if this where the only way
> to get the list adress. This isn't the case. Now it the warning you
> get, afther you get before you are realy on the list, would point to
> this stating it got the conditions then this would be a compelling
> argument.
>

All, and I said "All", mailing list subscribing forms mention their
archives ("To see the collection of prior postings to the list, visit
the freebsd-blahblah Archives.").  It is impossible to miss it.

Another thing, I do not really see many ways to discover the existence
of a FreeBSD mailing list:

- from archives via google or the FreeBSD.org search system
- from FreeBSD.org docs
- from the www.FreeBSD.org front page
- from a clairvoyant?

and these ways (at least most of them) clearly indicate the existence of
archives.
Anyway, it's just a false problem, it makes me think about a person
going to a TV show then later refusing to have "his face" recorded and
broadcasted...

Marc
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Anthony Atkielski]

Danny Pansters writes:

> Now you lump me into some self defined "geek community".

I didn't say anything about you.

> Apparently I don't respect the rule of law now. Isn't that slander?

FYI, slander is verbal defamation; written defamation would be libel.

If you truly don't respect the rule of law, then that would simply me
that you don't feel constrained by law and violate it when it suits
you--it would not necessarily mean that you'd be in violation of any
specific law.

Isn't my post copyrighted?  Copyrights are enforced by the same courts
that handle defamation.

> By extension that also includes the people that make and sustain
> FreeBSD.

What does?

> So the answer is DUNNO thank you.

The answer is that there are no firm precedents, so anything goes.  And
therefore prudence is wise.

> How else are generally broadcasted text messages covered then?

As soon as the message is created, it is copyrighted.  That's how
copyright works.  The author need not do anything special to ensure
copyright protection; it is automatic upon creation of the protected
work.

> Yes but it already pretty much does IMHO.

No, it does not.

> Perhaps it could be stated more absolutely.

Yes, it could.

It would also be convenient to be able to enable or disable archiving on
a per-subscriber basis, or even a per-message basis (with headers).

> In can elaborate in length about the nuclear/reprocessing industry in
> France and how private and gubernational forces are tied but you'd
> dismiss it as a special case anyhow.

Since a rant of this type would be totally irrelevant to the subject at
hand, it might be best to refrain.

> Which means that FreeBSD's openness is somehow at fault?

It has nothing to do with FreeBSD's "openness."

> So don't claim it is conclusive. It is void. Void. Void.

The copyrights indisputably exist, and there's no specific statutory
exemption for mailing lists.  It's difficult to see upon what basis a
successful defense against infringement could be built.

> You were the one talking about superimposing DMCA upon your
> national laws.

The DMCA is already a part of national laws, in the U.S.

> Yes, but perhaps not all, or not even most. Someone who can read code
> can also read legalese.

Not true.  They are two entirely different things, and code geeks often
have poor reading and writing skills to begin with.  Since legalese is
often at the upper end of reading difficulty, then, many geeks cannot
understand it--which is perhaps one reason why they think they can
ignore it.

> It won't be me anyhow (if applying your ethics).

If you applied my ethics, you would not be infringing in the first
place.

-- 
Anthony


___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Danny Pansters]

On Saturday 07 May 2005 04:52, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
> Danny Pansters writes:
> > Yeah it's also remarkably about (perceived) profit and not about
> > personal expression (at all). Copyright has nothing to do with freedom
> > of expression although they're often linked (by the wrong parties
> > usually).
>
> Whatever the motivations behind it, it is still the law.  I know that
> the geek community likes to affect a total disregard for the rule of
> law, but the rest of the world is fortunately not so inclined.

Now you lump me into some self defined "geek community". Apparently I don't 
respect the rule of law now. Isn't that slander? Or perhaps you can read 
minds (me and others) that'll go well in court.

By extension that also includes the people that make and sustain FreeBSD. Nice 
way to commend them.

> > No not on general textual copyright and certainly not on casually
> > (re)produced text in a context where one can expect it to be reused
> > even being told it will be. Got one?
>
> Nothing comes immediately to mind.  A domain without established
> precedents is always dangerous ground.

So the answer is DUNNO thank you.

> > DMCA is more about patents than about copyrights anyway ...
>
> The DMCA has nothing to do with patents.  Patents are distinct from
> copyrights.
>
> > Unless OP slaps a license on her postings it's all moot and considered
> > public domain.
>
> No, it is not; this is a very prevalent misconception.

How else are generally broadcasted text messages covered then? Elaborate 
please. Perhaps make distinctions per media if appropriate.

>
> > Perhaps our mailing lists when you enter it or log on via the web
> > pages should have a public domain or BSD or else if named policy laid
> > out right there which applies to postings, especially when people sign
> > up. That way we can avoid this babble which comes up ever so often.
>
> It would be simple enough to require that subscribers agree to public
> archives or other conditions as a prerequisite to joining a list.

Yes but it already pretty much does IMHO. Perhaps it could be stated more 
absolutely.


> > They'd choose the option that makes the most profit, you fool.
>
> The government does not stand to profit in these cases, whatever the
> decision taken.

No, they don't care about their major corps who make up mosty of the gross 
turnover each year. Sure. Mostly they're government subsedaries even so.

In can elaborate in length about the nuclear/reprocessing industry in France 
and how private and gubernational forces are tied but you'd dismiss it as a 
special case anyhow.

> > What else?
>
> The public interest is a strong motivator, and the need to maintain
> order.

Which means that FreeBSD's openness is somehow at fault?

> > And I reckon they never be in disagreement because they can freely decide
> > which law to use? Broken system only beneficial to US/F authorities and
> > multinationals it seems. But hey if you're happy with that... very
> > democratic.
>
> I'm afraid I don't understand many of your comments.

Sure.

> > Yeah about me legally marrying my male partner or not.
>
> Marriage is not relevant to the question under discussion.

Neither is much of what you tend to bring in either. *That* was the whole 
point honey :)

> > Let's leave (court) politics alone, both you and I have a reasonable
> > idea about what is accepted in and what isn't.
>
> Not necessarily.  As you have already implied, specific jurisprudence in
> this domain is lacking, although there are precedents in related
> situations.

So don't claim it is conclusive. It is void. Void. Void.

> > I'm in Holland and France isn't that different (in many cases better).
>
> As far as I know, the FreeBSD organization is based in the U.S., so
> Holland and France are irrelevant.

You were the one talking about superimposing DMCA upon your national laws.

> > You need relief not me, and hopefully it will stay that way.
>
> I didn't have anyone specific in mind.
>
> > Well, your awareness luckily isn't any measure.
>
> I am better informed than most in this domain.

Yes, but perhaps not all, or not even most. Someone who can read code can also 
read legalese.

> > So that's why you don't go into it I guess.
>
> Correct.

Aha.

> > Oh no, I want it now rather than later. Later will be worse even if
> > with less merit. Will you, as you argue so strongly in favor? By all
> > means, do it. It's much better than the (admitted) uncertainty we're
> > in now over lots of legal subjects.
>
> I don't understand this, either.

... ok ...

> > The BSD way is clarity first, so we would benifit even if it would be
> > a short term regression. Let OP sue and pay for the procedures, that
> > would be nice.
>
> It's not nice when you're the party that has to pay damages.

It won't be me anyhow (if applying your ethics).


Cheers,

Dan
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/free

Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Anthony Atkielski]

Danny Pansters writes:

> Yeah it's also remarkably about (perceived) profit and not about
> personal expression (at all). Copyright has nothing to do with freedom
> of expression although they're often linked (by the wrong parties
> usually).

Whatever the motivations behind it, it is still the law.  I know that
the geek community likes to affect a total disregard for the rule of
law, but the rest of the world is fortunately not so inclined.

> No not on general textual copyright and certainly not on casually
> (re)produced text in a context where one can expect it to be reused
> even being told it will be. Got one?

Nothing comes immediately to mind.  A domain without established
precedents is always dangerous ground.

> DMCA is more about patents than about copyrights anyway ...

The DMCA has nothing to do with patents.  Patents are distinct from
copyrights.

> Unless OP slaps a license on her postings it's all moot and considered
> public domain.

No, it is not; this is a very prevalent misconception.

> Perhaps our mailing lists when you enter it or log on via the web
> pages should have a public domain or BSD or else if named policy laid
> out right there which applies to postings, especially when people sign
> up. That way we can avoid this babble which comes up ever so often.

It would be simple enough to require that subscribers agree to public
archives or other conditions as a prerequisite to joining a list.

> They'd choose the option that makes the most profit, you fool.

The government does not stand to profit in these cases, whatever the
decision taken.

> What else?

The public interest is a strong motivator, and the need to maintain
order.

> And I reckon they never be in disagreement because they can freely decide
> which law to use? Broken system only beneficial to US/F authorities and
> multinationals it seems. But hey if you're happy with that... very 
> democratic.

I'm afraid I don't understand many of your comments.

> Yeah about me legally marrying my male partner or not.

Marriage is not relevant to the question under discussion.

> Let's leave (court) politics alone, both you and I have a reasonable
> idea about what is accepted in and what isn't.

Not necessarily.  As you have already implied, specific jurisprudence in
this domain is lacking, although there are precedents in related
situations.

> I'm in Holland and France isn't that different (in many cases better).

As far as I know, the FreeBSD organization is based in the U.S., so
Holland and France are irrelevant.

> You need relief not me, and hopefully it will stay that way.

I didn't have anyone specific in mind.

> Well, your awareness luckily isn't any measure.

I am better informed than most in this domain.

> So that's why you don't go into it I guess.

Correct.

> Oh no, I want it now rather than later. Later will be worse even if
> with less merit. Will you, as you argue so strongly in favor? By all
> means, do it. It's much better than the (admitted) uncertainty we're
> in now over lots of legal subjects.

I don't understand this, either.

> The BSD way is clarity first, so we would benifit even if it would be
> a short term regression. Let OP sue and pay for the procedures, that
> would be nice.

It's not nice when you're the party that has to pay damages.

-- 
Anthony


___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Anthony Atkielski]

Alex de Kruijff writes:

> Where these persons prosecuted lately?

No.  The first I heard of these problems was probably a good 20 years
ago or so, and they probably predated that.  Nevertheless, it is
standard practice to include such warnings today.

-- 
Anthony


___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Danny Pansters]

On Saturday 07 May 2005 02:42, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
> Danny Pansters writes:
> > Which shows how bad cratic souvereign counties are gettingthey're
> > accepting US corp law as their own.

> Copyright law is fairly consistent in the industrialized world.

Yeah it's also remarkably about (perceived) profit and not about personal 
expression (at all). Copyright has nothing to do with freedom of expression 
although they're often linked (by the wrong parties usually).

So I'm longing for a number (amount) to slap on this then we can compare notes 
proper. Got one?

> > Anyway, stuff your DMCA.. until we have a valid precedent for it I'd say
> > stuff it.
>
> There's already a lot of jurisprudence to draw upon.

No not on general textual copyright and certainly not on casually (re)produced 
text in a context where one can expect it to be reused even being told it 
will be. Got one?

DMCA is more about patents than about copyrights anyway (both ways it is bad, 
if only because corporate protection doesnt belong in criminal justice, heck 
it doesnt even belong in private (as in persons) justice to begin with, it 
should be the outer peel not the inner, but well, welcome to 1985). But 
nowadays corporations are the only legal entities fulkly enjoying "freedom" 
as written down and meant for individuals. But I digress.

You're the one who is confused by copyright vs patents and all. Copyright 
occurs automatically on everything you write or do or create (if your time 
hasn't been contractully bought by your employer, talk about slavery) but it 
is about redistribution.

And redistribution becomes relevant if any gain or profit is involved. 
Personal comments on mailinglists hardly apply. Of course if you make a piece 
of software or for example make a poem and publish it through a public 
mailing list you might have some merit, but I'd think that tha charter for 
that mailing list alone qualifies as a no-no for that. After all you know 
what you're going into. Besides a "work" such as a piece of software or a 
poem should have a license covering (maybe) use (end use license) and 
(copyright) redistribution. Neither takes away the default reasoning that 
seems appropriate when posting to a public and archived forum. Unless OP 
slaps a license on her postings it's all moot and considered public domain.

Perhaps our mailing lists when you enter it or log on via the web pages should 
have a public domain or BSD or else if named policy laid out right there 
which applies to postings, especially when people sign up. That way we can 
avoid this babble which comes up ever so often.

> > What if it's the US DMCA against a big French software house (assuming
> > you have one). How would you think your gov would react?
>
> I suppose my government would either apply French copyright law if the
> infringement were in France, or U.S. copyright law (i.e., the DMCA) if
> the infringement were in the U.S.

They'd choose the option that makes the most profit, you fool. What else?

And I reckon they never be in disagreement because they can freely decide 
which law to use? Broken system only beneficial to US/F authorities and 
multinationals it seems. But hey if you're happy with that... very 
democratic.

> > Now go back to someone complaining about their want-on sent messages
> > being archived... yeah sure they would cave in. Dream on.
>
> It's surprising what courts care about sometimes.

Yeah about me legally marrying my male partner or not. That's the level the 
courts are at today. Let's leave (court) politics alone, both you and I have 
a reasonable idea about what is accepted in and what isn't. I'm in Holland 
and France isn't that different (in many cases better). The US however is a 
different ballgame and not one to be proud of to defend.

>
> > And besides as other people have pointed out in the realm of cyberspace
> > once you post something willingly, it's impossible to retain it and any
> > perceived profit that would have been generated by it (yes, the court
> > will ask about this loss of profit). It's a loosing shipwreck trying to
> > go to court for that.
>
> You can still obtain relief in various forms.

You need relief not me, and hopefully it will stay that way.

> > It may just end up as what most people would expect: considered "fair
> > use" ...
>
> I'm not aware of any cases in which reproduction of an entire work has
> been held to be fair use; fair use is usually interpreted pretty
> narrowly.

Well, your awareness luckily isn't any measure.

> > ... and if it doesn't it's going to loose over technicalities alone, like
> > when you answer back quoting the original message. Were you breaking
> > copyrights?
>
> That's not a technicality, nor is it relevant to the main question.

So that's why you don't go into it I guess.

> > No judge is going to do that dance, not even in the crazy paranoid
> > corporate stronghold culture we live in these days. Forget it.
>
> You don't know what a judge will do unti

Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Alex de Kruijff]

On Sat, May 07, 2005 at 03:08:14AM +0200, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
> Alex de Kruijff writes:
> 
> > In my country forcing you way in to a computer system is a criminal act.
> > It can be compared to breaking in to a house.
> 
> It is in most countries.  However, persons prosecuted for such crimes
> have mounted successful defenses based on the fact that they were never
> explicitly told that the systems they penetrated were legally accessible
> only to authorized users.  Thus, careful sysadmins today explicitly
> display a message at login telling the user that only authorized users
> are permitted to access the system.  Many operating systems even make
> special provisions for this.

Where these persons prosecuted lately? Because in the early days lot of
computer laws didn't exist. This made it easier to have a defence agains
such lawsuites.

-- 
Alex

Please copy the original recipients, otherwise I may not read your reply.
WWW: http://www.kruijff.org/alex/FreeBSD/
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Alex de Kruijff]

On Sat, May 07, 2005 at 02:20:41AM +0200, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
> Chris writes:
> 
> > Hahaha - good stuff! Yanno, last I knew (and that was some time ago) You
> > had to submit writings for review to the copyright folks here in the U.S.
> 
> It has never been that way.

I bleave this is true for tue USA until 1989
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Literary_and_Artistic_Works

-- 
Alex

Please copy the original recipients, otherwise I may not read your reply.
WWW: http://www.kruijff.org/alex/FreeBSD/
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Alex de Kruijff]

On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 12:04:10PM -0500, Kirk Strauser wrote:
> On Friday 06 May 2005 05:52, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
> 
> > DMCA
> 
> So, how's that working out for you with non-US third-party mirrors that 
> aren't subject to American law in any way?

For EU country the procedure is similar. (I don't have an anwser for
non-BERNE CONVENTION countries, like Canada)

-- 
Alex

Please copy the original recipients, otherwise I may not read your reply.
WWW: http://www.kruijff.org/alex/FreeBSD/
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Anthony Atkielski]

Alex de Kruijff writes:

> In my country forcing you way in to a computer system is a criminal act.
> It can be compared to breaking in to a house.

It is in most countries.  However, persons prosecuted for such crimes
have mounted successful defenses based on the fact that they were never
explicitly told that the systems they penetrated were legally accessible
only to authorized users.  Thus, careful sysadmins today explicitly
display a message at login telling the user that only authorized users
are permitted to access the system.  Many operating systems even make
special provisions for this.

> Here there are even rules about recording on the street. The (security)
> camera's can't be pointed to a house in sucha way that it would single
> out anyone inside. Also anyone recorded on the street have rigth that
> they can use to prevent them being on TV. It not used very much, but it
> exist.

Those are image rights, as opposed to photography rights.  In many
jurisdictions, there are no restrictions on photography in public, but
you may still need property or model releases before actually using the
images taken in public for certain purposes.

-- 
Anthony


___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Alex de Kruijff]

On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 08:42:29PM +0200, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
> Bart Silverstrim writes:
> > 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> It's no secret that most computer systems are not open to everyone;
> 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.

In my country forcing you way in to a computer system is a criminal act.
It can be compared to breaking in to a house.

> > 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.
> 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.

Here there are even rules about recording on the street. The (security)
camera's can't be pointed to a house in sucha way that it would single
out anyone inside. Also anyone recorded on the street have rigth that
they can use to prevent them being on TV. It not used very much, but it
exist.

-- 
Alex

Please copy the original recipients, otherwise I may not read your reply.
WWW: http://www.kruijff.org/alex/FreeBSD/
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Alex de Kruijff]

On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 05:13:16PM +0200, Marc Fonvieille wrote:
> On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 01:06:48PM +0200, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
> > Giorgos Keramidas writes:
> > 
> > > This is a recurring theme.  It's really *NOT* the fault of the
> > > postmaster of FreeBSD.org that you posted to public mailing lists.
> > 
> > It _is_ the fault of the mailing list manager that posts are being
> > archived without the permission of mailing-list members.  Members must
> > be required to explicitly grant permission when they subscribe.
> > 
> > > The Handbook section about mailing lists[1] says:
> > 
> > What the Handbook says is irrelevant, because nobody is required to read
> > it in order to subscribe to a list.
> >
> 
> Well, the "Mailing lists" link on http://www.FreeBSD.org/ homepage
> points on
> http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/eresources.html#ERESOURCES-MAIL

That true and this would be a fine argument if this where the only way
to get the list adress. This isn't the case. Now it the warning you
get, afther you get before you are realy on the list, would point to
this stating it got the conditions then this would be a compelling
argument.

-- 
Alex

Please copy the original recipients, otherwise I may not read your reply.
WWW: http://www.kruijff.org/alex/FreeBSD/
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Alex de Kruijff]

On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 02:53:16PM -0500, Paul Schmehl wrote:
> --On Friday, May 06, 2005 08:48:14 PM +0200 Anthony Atkielski 
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>So, if I *respond* to one of his posts (including his email address and
> >>at least a portion of what he wrote) and therefore have *some* of his
> >>"copyrighted" material in my post then he can request that *my* post be
> >>removed *without* my permission?
> >
> >Not if your backquoting falls within the scope of "fair use,"
> 
> Here's a webpage that makes your arguments laughable:
> 
> 
> It's a mailing list to discuss digital copyright.  Its archives are 
> searchable, and there's no requirement to agree to that when you subscribe.

So a site about copyrigth can not break the law? Just because something
happens doesn't mean this is legal.

> This one is even funnier:
> 
> 
> Searchable archives going back to 1997.

Same remark as above.

> You *still* haven't provided *one* link to prove anything you've said.  On 
> the Internet, that's tantamount to an admission that you're blowing smoke.

So have you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Literary_and_Artistic_Works
http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html
http://www.google.com/search?q=BERNE+CONVENTION&sourceid=opera&num=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

He is legaly prity much correct in everything I have read.

It basicly comes down to this: You have copyrigth over everything you
write. This requires that one need to agree to a licence before others
can freely copy this to there sites.

> I doubt seriously your *extremely* strict interpretation of copyright would 
> hold up in any court of law in the US or anywhere else for that matter.  I 
> have no doubt that you could find a judge somewhere to rule in your favor. 
> After all, judges make incredibly stupid rulings daily.  But in the end, 
> your argument would fall on deaf ears when saner minds were engaged.
> 
> When you post to a public list, your post are not copyrighted material. 
> They exist in the public domain.  And *this* list *is* a public forum.

This is only true if the author agrees to this.

This is way shrink wrap licences exist. One can not clain the didn't
knew about this. They clearly had to posibilty to do so before accepting
the deal.

-- 
Alex

Please copy the original recipients, otherwise I may not read your reply.
WWW: http://www.kruijff.org/alex/FreeBSD/
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Anthony Atkielski]

Danny Pansters writes:

> Which shows how bad cratic souvereign counties are gettingthey're accepting US
> corp law as their own.

Copyright law is fairly consistent in the industrialized world.

> Anyway, stuff your DMCA.. until we have a valid precedent for it I'd say stuff
> it.

There's already a lot of jurisprudence to draw upon.

> What if it's the US DMCA against a big French software house (assuming
> you have one). How would you think your gov would react?

I suppose my government would either apply French copyright law if the
infringement were in France, or U.S. copyright law (i.e., the DMCA) if
the infringement were in the U.S.

> Now go back to someone complaining about their want-on sent messages
> being archived... yeah sure they would cave in. Dream on.

It's surprising what courts care about sometimes.

> And besides as other people have pointed out in the realm of cyberspace once
> you post something willingly, it's impossible to retain it and any perceived
> profit that would have been generated by it (yes, the court will ask about
> this loss of profit). It's a loosing shipwreck trying to go to court for
> that.

You can still obtain relief in various forms.

> It may just end up as what most people would expect: considered "fair
> use" ...

I'm not aware of any cases in which reproduction of an entire work has
been held to be fair use; fair use is usually interpreted pretty
narrowly.

> ... and if it doesn't it's going to loose over technicalities alone, like when
> you answer back quoting the original message. Were you breaking copyrights?

That's not a technicality, nor is it relevant to the main question.

> No judge is going to do that dance, not even in the crazy paranoid
> corporate stronghold culture we live in these days. Forget it.

You don't know what a judge will do until you're in court.

> Still... would the OP please try to sue so that we get a nice jurisdiction
> about this. Rather now than later.

Be careful what you wish for.

-- 
Anthony


___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Danny Pansters]

On Saturday 07 May 2005 00:49, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
> Tomas Quintero writes:
> > Theres just one more big problem with this, and all the DMCA stuff.
> >
> > I don't think Fafa is in America. I don't think he'd be a US Citizen
> > either. Fafa, can you claim otherwise? I mean all indications in his
> > sig hint towards him being a citizen of another country.
>
> It's possible to submit DMCA notifications from outside the U.S., if the
> potential infringement is inside the U.S.

Which shows how bad cratic souvereign counties are gettingthey're accepting US 
corp law as their own.

Anyway, stuff your DMCA.. until we have a valid precedent for it I'd say stuff 
it. What if it's the US DMCA against a big French software house (assuming 
you have one). How would you think your gov would react? Now go back to 
someone complaining about their want-on sent messages being archived... yeah 
sure they would cave in. Dream on.

And besides as other people have pointed out in the realm of cyberspace once 
you post something willingly, it's impossible to retain it and any perceived 
profit that would have been generated by it (yes, the court will ask about 
this loss of profit). It's a loosing shipwreck trying to go to court for 
that.

It may just end up as what most people would expect: considered "fair use", 
and if it doesn't it's going to loose over technicalities alone, like when 
you answer back quoting the original message. Were you breaking copyrights? 
Not if the poster could have expected to be quoted and besides that if 
there's no (perceived) profit involved its moot anyhow. No judge is going to 
do that dance, not even in the crazy paranoid corporate stronghold culture we 
live in these days. Forget it.

Still... would the OP please try to sue so that we get a nice jurisdiction 
about this. Rather now than later.


Dan
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Anthony Atkielski]

Chris writes:

> Hahaha - good stuff! Yanno, last I knew (and that was some time ago) You
> had to submit writings for review to the copyright folks here in the U.S.

It has never been that way.

Copyright exists in any work fixed in a tangible medium at the time of
its creation.  No formalities are necessary.

> Then, if they deem it so, you then had to pay a fee to have it
> copyrighted.

No, you do not.

You may be confusing copyright with patents or trademarks.

> As I said - this may or may not be the case any longer ...

It has never been the case.

> ... I didn't know that just by writing something, you were grandted all the
> nifty perks of it being copywritten.

As a matter of fact, just by writing something, you implicitly receive
all the benefits of copyright (not copywriting, which is something
entirely different).  No formalities are necessary.

> Then again - I'm not a lawyer. And to be frank, I couldn't care less either.

So it seems.  It's worthwhile to at least make an effort not to infringe
on the copyrights of others, though, as litigation can be costly.

-- 
Anthony


___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Chris]

Chris wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
>>On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 12:10:58PM -0700, John Pettitt wrote:
>>
>>
>>>This news just in:
>>>
>>>Fafa Hafiz Krantz a research designer at Barbershop in Norway (
>>>http://www.home.no/barbershop ) has asked that his posts be removed for
>>>all the archives of several public email lists.The request sparked a
>>>heated debate over the issue of copyright on email lists and raised
>>>interesting questions about specifically opting in to having posts
>>>archived.  As is typical in such debates few of the participants cited
>>>any real evidence backing up their views and almost no attention was
>>>paid to the jurisdictional issues created by international lists.
>>>
>>>There was speculation that the request for deletion was prompted by the
>>>posters political views as referenced in his email signature which
>>>points to an article about middle east politics
>>>http://www.home.no/barbershop/smart/sharon.pdf
>>>
>>>With the debate he started Mr Krantz seems to have had ensured that his
>>>name will live in archives for the foreseeable future, referenced in
>>>articles such as this one which he has no copyright to and no control
>>>over.   In the end the best strategy seems to be: if you don't want to
>>>be quoted don't say anything.
>>>
>>>--END--
>>
>>
>>ROTFL!
>>
>>Now post this on Slashdot and have it picked up by Google News and
>>major news agencies. I guess, Fafa's bandwidth costs will go through
>>the roof in the blink of an eye. So will his page rank, incidentally.
>>Not that I'm suggesting doing this, of course!
>>
>>
>>
>>>This news item may be archived and reposted in any medium without
>>>limitation including on search engines.
>>
>>
>>Absolutely! Copyright doesn't protect anyone from making a fool out
>>of themselves.
>>
>>Cheers,
>>-cpgost.
>>
> 
> 
> Hahaha - good stuff! Yanno, last I knew (and that was some time ago) You
> had to submit writings for review to the copyright folks here in the U.S.
> 
> Then, if they deem it so, you then had to pay a fee to have it
> copyrighted.  As I said - this may or may not be the case any longer, I
> didn't know that just by writing something, you were grandted all the
> nifty perks of it being copywritten. Then again - I'm not a lawyer. And
> to be frank, I couldn't care less either.
> 
> 

Ahhh - Here we go...

"Registration and the Copyright Process

The way in which copyright protection is secured is frequently
misunderstood. Copyright is secured automatically when the work is
created. A work is "created" when it is fixed into a book, tape or
electronic medium for the first time. Thus, for example, a song can be
fixed in sheet music or in a digital tape, or both. No publication,
registration or other action in the U.S. Copyright Office is required to
secure copyright. However, in order to enforce the copyright and for
many other practical reasons, it will be necessary to register the
copyright with the U.S. Copyright Office. "

http://www.legalzoom.com/law_library/copyrights/registration.html

So - I really don't think users like Fafa have a heck of alot of
recourse. Then again, this was only one link via Google.

-- 
Best regards,
Chris

Never play leapfrog with a photo enlarger.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Anthony Atkielski]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

> Absolutely! Copyright doesn't protect anyone from making a fool out
> of themselves.

So I see.  But that is not the purpose of copyright.

-- 
Anthony


___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Chris]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 12:10:58PM -0700, John Pettitt wrote:
> 
>>This news just in:
>>
>>Fafa Hafiz Krantz a research designer at Barbershop in Norway (
>>http://www.home.no/barbershop ) has asked that his posts be removed for
>>all the archives of several public email lists.The request sparked a
>>heated debate over the issue of copyright on email lists and raised
>>interesting questions about specifically opting in to having posts
>>archived.  As is typical in such debates few of the participants cited
>>any real evidence backing up their views and almost no attention was
>>paid to the jurisdictional issues created by international lists.
>>
>>There was speculation that the request for deletion was prompted by the
>>posters political views as referenced in his email signature which
>>points to an article about middle east politics
>>http://www.home.no/barbershop/smart/sharon.pdf
>>
>>With the debate he started Mr Krantz seems to have had ensured that his
>>name will live in archives for the foreseeable future, referenced in
>>articles such as this one which he has no copyright to and no control
>>over.   In the end the best strategy seems to be: if you don't want to
>>be quoted don't say anything.
>>
>>--END--
> 
> 
> ROTFL!
> 
> Now post this on Slashdot and have it picked up by Google News and
> major news agencies. I guess, Fafa's bandwidth costs will go through
> the roof in the blink of an eye. So will his page rank, incidentally.
> Not that I'm suggesting doing this, of course!
> 
> 
>>This news item may be archived and reposted in any medium without
>>limitation including on search engines.
> 
> 
> Absolutely! Copyright doesn't protect anyone from making a fool out
> of themselves.
> 
> Cheers,
> -cpgost.
> 

Hahaha - good stuff! Yanno, last I knew (and that was some time ago) You
had to submit writings for review to the copyright folks here in the U.S.

Then, if they deem it so, you then had to pay a fee to have it
copyrighted.  As I said - this may or may not be the case any longer, I
didn't know that just by writing something, you were grandted all the
nifty perks of it being copywritten. Then again - I'm not a lawyer. And
to be frank, I couldn't care less either.


-- 
Best regards,
Chris

Never play leapfrog with a photo enlarger.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[cpghost]

On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 12:10:58PM -0700, John Pettitt wrote:
> This news just in:
> 
> Fafa Hafiz Krantz a research designer at Barbershop in Norway (
> http://www.home.no/barbershop ) has asked that his posts be removed for
> all the archives of several public email lists.The request sparked a
> heated debate over the issue of copyright on email lists and raised
> interesting questions about specifically opting in to having posts
> archived.  As is typical in such debates few of the participants cited
> any real evidence backing up their views and almost no attention was
> paid to the jurisdictional issues created by international lists.
> 
> There was speculation that the request for deletion was prompted by the
> posters political views as referenced in his email signature which
> points to an article about middle east politics
> http://www.home.no/barbershop/smart/sharon.pdf
> 
> With the debate he started Mr Krantz seems to have had ensured that his
> name will live in archives for the foreseeable future, referenced in
> articles such as this one which he has no copyright to and no control
> over.   In the end the best strategy seems to be: if you don't want to
> be quoted don't say anything.
> 
> --END--

ROTFL!

Now post this on Slashdot and have it picked up by Google News and
major news agencies. I guess, Fafa's bandwidth costs will go through
the roof in the blink of an eye. So will his page rank, incidentally.
Not that I'm suggesting doing this, of course!

> This news item may be archived and reposted in any medium without
> limitation including on search engines.

Absolutely! Copyright doesn't protect anyone from making a fool out
of themselves.

Cheers,
-cpgost.

-- 
Cordula's Web. http://www.cordula.ws/
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[cpghost]

On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 08:35:38PM +0200, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
> When you sign up to a mailing list, you implicitly give permission to
> distribute your posts to other members of the list.  You do _not_ give
> permission to have your posts archived, and you do _not_ give permission
> to have your posts published and made accessible to people who are not
> on the list.

Anthony,

mailing lists of OSS projects have been archived for a very long time
now. Anyone who doesn't know that, would have been living under a rock.

People trying to argue against this overly widespread modus operandi
of OSS mailing lists in a court of law would have a real hard time
to convince the judges that such comments which have been committed
to public mailing lists may not be archived under fair use provisions.

Fafa has no chance to revoke his postings entirely -- no matter how much
litigation he deems necessary to initiate -- because they are spread all
over the mirrors in more jurisdictions than he can even dream of. Anyone
trying to squeeze this back just makes a fool out of himself and loses
time and money.

Anyway, this thread is becoming increasingly burocratic. Please take it
to -advocacy@ or -chat@ or, better yet, let it die.

Regards,
-cpghost.

-- 
Cordula's Web. http://www.cordula.ws/
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Anthony Atkielski]

Tomas Quintero writes:

> Theres just one more big problem with this, and all the DMCA stuff.
>
> I don't think Fafa is in America. I don't think he'd be a US Citizen
> either. Fafa, can you claim otherwise? I mean all indications in his
> sig hint towards him being a citizen of another country.

It's possible to submit DMCA notifications from outside the U.S., if the
potential infringement is inside the U.S.

Additionally, even without the DMCA, the basic rules of copyright still
apply.

-- 
Anthony


___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Anthony Atkielski]

Paul Schmehl writes:

> Here's a webpage that makes your arguments laughable:
> 
>
> It's a mailing list to discuss digital copyright.  Its archives are 
> searchable, and there's no requirement to agree to that when you subscribe.

What's so funny about it?

> This one is even funnier:
> 
>
> Searchable archives going back to 1997.

See above.

> You *still* haven't provided *one* link to prove anything you've said.

Copyright law isn't good enough?

> On the Internet, that's tantamount to an admission that you're
> blowing smoke.

No, it's not.  I see people posting links all the time (hmm), and
posting links typically doesn't prove anything.  You can find a link to
"prove" just about anything you want on the Internet.

> I doubt seriously your *extremely* strict interpretation of copyright would
> hold up in any court of law in the US or anywhere else for that matter.

Your doubts are not important.  It's what actually happens in court
that's important.

> I have no doubt that you could find a judge somewhere to rule
> in your favor.

I don't know.

> After all, judges make incredibly stupid rulings daily.

Maybe you should advise them, so that they can benefit from your wisdom,
and your collection of Web links.

> But in the end, your argument would fall on deaf ears when saner minds
> were engaged.

I'm not so sure.  I think it better to be safe than sorry.

> When you post to a public list, your post are not copyrighted material.
> They exist in the public domain.

False.  Anything you write is copyrighted as soon as you record it.  It
never enters the public domain unless you release it explicitly to the
public domain or the copyright expires (70 years after your death).

-- 
Anthony


___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Tomas Quintero]

On 5/6/05, Anthony Atkielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Roland Smith writes:
> 
> > Subscribing to a list means that you give permission for your messages
> > to be sent to all subscribers. Any one of those could save the messages,
> > creating an archive. So posting to the list implies permission for
> > archival.
> 
> It doesn't give permission to make the archive publicly accessible.
> 
> --
> Anthony

Theres just one more big problem with this, and all the DMCA stuff.

I don't think Fafa is in America. I don't think he'd be a US Citizen
either. Fafa, can you claim otherwise? I mean all indications in his
sig hint towards him being a citizen of another country.

-- 
-Tomas Quintero
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Tomas Quintero]

On 5/6/05, Fafa Hafiz Krantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> Hello.
> 
> I have a big problem. My privacy has been violated.
> 
> I had no idea when I first started writing posts to the FreeBSD
> mailinglist that it would be archived, let alone indexed by Google
> so that the world can spy on my words.
> 
> Can the FreeBSD mailinglist administrators change my name and
> e-mails, or delete my posts, if I can prove that I wrote them?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> --
> 
> Fafa Hafiz Krantz
>  Research Designer @ http://www.home.no/barbershop
>  Enlightened @ http://www.home.no/barbershop/smart/sharon.pdf
> 
> --

Results 1 - 10 of about 57 for Fafa Hafiz Krantz. (0.23 seconds)

Results 1 - 10 of about 175,000 for Tomas Quintero. (0.33 seconds)

If only I was all of them. Point being, you're gonna make it, you'll
survive. Enjoy the publicity, I'm sure you'll have the tabloids
calling to ask who The GREAT FAFA is.

I'm kinda forced to laugh about people suggesting the use of DMCA and
other copyright laws/methods to force Fafa to disappear off the face
of google.
-- 
-Tomas Quintero
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Paul Schmehl]

--On Friday, May 06, 2005 08:48:14 PM +0200 Anthony Atkielski 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

So, if I *respond* to one of his posts (including his email address and
at least a portion of what he wrote) and therefore have *some* of his
"copyrighted" material in my post then he can request that *my* post be
removed *without* my permission?
Not if your backquoting falls within the scope of "fair use,"
Here's a webpage that makes your arguments laughable:

It's a mailing list to discuss digital copyright.  Its archives are 
searchable, and there's no requirement to agree to that when you subscribe.

This one is even funnier:

Searchable archives going back to 1997.
You *still* haven't provided *one* link to prove anything you've said.  On 
the Internet, that's tantamount to an admission that you're blowing smoke.

I doubt seriously your *extremely* strict interpretation of copyright would 
hold up in any court of law in the US or anywhere else for that matter.  I 
have no doubt that you could find a judge somewhere to rule in your favor. 
After all, judges make incredibly stupid rulings daily.  But in the end, 
your argument would fall on deaf ears when saner minds were engaged.

When you post to a public list, your post are not copyrighted material. 
They exist in the public domain.  And *this* list *is* a public forum.

Paul Schmehl ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Adjunct Information Security Officer
The University of Texas at Dallas
AVIEN Founding Member
http://www.utdallas.edu
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Anthony Atkielski]

Clifton Royston writes:

> There are specific safe-harbor provisions for ISPs and
> networks which are merely transiting and/or caching traffic.

Hmm ... yes, my mistake, provided that nothing is actually stored on the
networks in question.

> I have to believe you've never actually implemented any of the
> strategies and claims you're pontificating about.

I haven't sent out any DMCAs thus far.

> Of course, the best way to ensure you don't look bad in Google is to
> try hard to post only intelligent questions and comments to mailing
> lists - for example, by searching web archives of the mailing list or
> employing common sense - and to post intelligent answers when you have
> them.  Not acting like a buffoon will go a long way on the Net.  Of
> course that may be just too hard for a few people.

The only thing one really needs to avoid is personal attacks.

-- 
Anthony


___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[John Pettitt]

This news just in:

Fafa Hafiz Krantz a research designer at Barbershop in Norway (
http://www.home.no/barbershop ) has asked that his posts be removed for
all the archives of several public email lists.The request sparked a
heated debate over the issue of copyright on email lists and raised
interesting questions about specifically opting in to having posts
archived.  As is typical in such debates few of the participants cited
any real evidence backing up their views and almost no attention was
paid to the jurisdictional issues created by international lists.

There was speculation that the request for deletion was prompted by the
posters political views as referenced in his email signature which
points to an article about middle east politics
http://www.home.no/barbershop/smart/sharon.pdf

With the debate he started Mr Krantz seems to have had ensured that his
name will live in archives for the foreseeable future, referenced in
articles such as this one which he has no copyright to and no control
over.   In the end the best strategy seems to be: if you don't want to
be quoted don't say anything.

--END--


This news item may be archived and reposted in any medium without
limitation including on search engines.




___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Clifton Royston]

On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 08:49:26PM +0200, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
> Kirk Strauser writes:
> 
> > So, how's that working out for you with non-US third-party mirrors that
> > aren't subject to American law in any way?
> 
> The DMCA cannot be used against them directly, but if their traffic
> transits through servers or networks in the U.S., you can go after the
> U.S. providers.  It's more complicated than the simple case of notifying
> the infringing site directly.

  You are obviously not that familiar with the DMCA.  There are
specific safe-harbor provisions for ISPs and networks which are merely
transiting and/or caching traffic.  I have to believe you've never
actually implemented any of the strategies and claims you're
pontificating about.

  Of course, the best way to ensure you don't look bad in Google is to
try hard to post only intelligent questions and comments to mailing
lists - for example, by searching web archives of the mailing list or
employing common sense - and to post intelligent answers when you have
them.  Not acting like a buffoon will go a long way on the Net.  Of
course that may be just too hard for a few people.
 
  -- Clifton

-- 
  Clifton Royston  --  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 Tiki Technologies Lead Programmer/Software Architect
"I'm gonna tell my son to grow up pretty as the grass is green
And whip-smart as the English Channel's wide..."
-- 'Whip-Smart', Liz Phair
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Anthony Atkielski]

Al Johnsonn writes:

> This advice is more ridiculous than telling him to put aerosol spray back
> into a can.

Where's the flaw in it?  That's what the DMCA is for.

-- 
Anthony


___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Anthony Atkielski]

Kirk Strauser writes:

> So, how's that working out for you with non-US third-party mirrors that
> aren't subject to American law in any way?

The DMCA cannot be used against them directly, but if their traffic
transits through servers or networks in the U.S., you can go after the
U.S. providers.  It's more complicated than the simple case of notifying
the infringing site directly.

-- 
Anthony


___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Anthony Atkielski]

Paul Schmehl writes:

> So, if I *respond* to one of his posts (including his email address and at
> least a portion of what he wrote) and therefore have *some* of his 
> "copyrighted" material in my post then he can request that *my* post be
> removed *without* my permission?

Not if your backquoting falls within the scope of "fair use," if you are
in the U.S.  In some other countries, he can require that you remove the
backquotes from your post (but you don't need to remove your entire
post).  And if you backquote too much, it's infringement, not fair use,
even in the U.S.

> Do you now see anything wrong with this?

No.  It actually happens.

> Before you start spouting legal advice on a public list, I would suggest
> that you point to chapter and verse that *specifically* addresses posts
> made to a public forum that *explicitly* states that such posts will be
> archived and *explicitly* states that you have the right to request their
> removal *and* the right to sue if the archiving party refuses to remove
> them.  Furthermore, you must first prove that post made to a public forum
> are protected by copyright laws.

Any creative work fixed in a tangible medium is protected by copyright
by default.  Any form of reproduction of a copyrighted work requires the
permission of its creator, _except_ as otherwise provided by law.
That's the way the law is written.  No exceptions are made for archival
of mailing lists in publicly accessible archives (nor for any other use
of messages to mailing lists, AFAIK).

-- 
Anthony


___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Anthony Atkielski]

Roland Smith writes:

> Subscribing to a list means that you give permission for your messages
> to be sent to all subscribers. Any one of those could save the messages,
> creating an archive. So posting to the list implies permission for
> archival.

It doesn't give permission to make the archive publicly accessible.

-- 
Anthony


___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"