On Mon, 16 Apr 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> No, I said there was some implicit license to redistribute and
> republish as online archives, etc. I didn't say (and don't think) that
> license should extend to -- the example I gave -- publishing the posts
> in book form.
>
> The point you fail
On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 02:45:03PM -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
> Yes, you did. You specificaly said that posts through the CDR were
> implicitly usable for commercial use (ie your using them in a article)
> without permission or other contact to the author. You also compared it to
No, I said there w
On Mon, 16 Apr 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 12:08:57AM -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
> > Yep, let's bitch about how stupid I am and how I don't get it. And at the
> > same time hope nobody notices you're doing nothing but waving your hands.
> > Your forte is clearly the ad
Maybe that's what you meant to have said. But you don't seem to have a clue
about your ability to force, say, news organizations to bend to your
view of what's "commercial use" of a cypherpunks posting.
We tend to view it sas "fair use."
-Declan
Who has a job in the 'press'
On Mon, Apr 16, 200
On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 12:08:57AM -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
> Yep, let's bitch about how stupid I am and how I don't get it. And at the
> same time hope nobody notices you're doing nothing but waving your hands.
> Your forte is clearly the ad hominim.
Hardly. But let's assume arguendo that you ac
On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Alan Olsen wrote:
> What I cannot understand is that he expects people, many of whom are
> self-proclaimed Anarchists and Troublemakers, to obey copyright law.
I haven't said word one about 'what I expect other people to do'
(anarchist, troubelmakers, Baptists, or not). As
On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> Sigh. This reminds me of the old adage: Never get involved in an argument
> with the insane. You're not going to win, and it's not that much fun
> to watch Choate froth at the mouth.
>
> There are two issues here: Implied consent, and fair use. Tha
On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> Sigh. This reminds me of the old adage: Never get involved in an argument
> with the insane. You're not going to win, and it's not that much fun
> to watch Choate froth at the mouth.
>
> There are two issues here: Implied consent, and fair use. That
Sigh. This reminds me of the old adage: Never get involved in an argument
with the insane. You're not going to win, and it's not that much fun
to watch Choate froth at the mouth.
There are two issues here: Implied consent, and fair use. That Choate
can't, or refuses to, understand them speaks for
On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> Okay, Jim, let's test your tortured interpretation of the law.
>
> I'll take one of your posts that's 201 lines long and post it on my
> website, properly attributed. You sue me, and we'll watch what
> happens. Ready?
I never said I had intent to
Okay, Jim, let's test your tortured interpretation of the law.
I'll take one of your posts that's 201 lines long and post it on my
website, properly attributed. You sue me, and we'll watch what
happens. Ready?
-Declan
On Thu, Apr 12, 2001 at 05:42:16PM -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Apr
On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Sunder wrote:
> Um, yes, this is precisely what I've just said.
>
> 1. by posting to a CDR node, he implicitly consents to all duplication
> caused by the CDR feeds, to search engines, individuals, archivers, other
> CDR's, etc.
No, neither I or you have consented to any s
On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> Choate has given an implied consent for his posts to be redistributed
> in certain ways.
How? Saying it over and over like a Buddhist mantra won't make it so.
> Much as Usenet participants do.
A privately run mailing list is not equivalent to USE
On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Sunder wrote:
> forwarders, etc, but he claims that it is not okay for these works
> to be printed in newspapers, magazines, or on their web sites without
> his consent.
Bullshit, I am not.
I am saying that if you want to print them in such places you can't print
them outs
At 02:21 PM 4/12/01 -0400, Sunder wrote:
>
>While he can't really enforce what people do with the emails that they
>receive from him, if he sees his posts printed in full in the next issue
>of WIRED, he could sue.
>
Quite salient coming after Tim's post about the vulnerability of
centralized, pub
At 04:18 PM 4/12/01 -0400, Sunder wrote:
>Um, yes, this is precisely what I've just said.
No, this is a more accurate retelling of copyright law than what you just
said. Though you weren't *that* far off.
>The odds of him winning a lawsuit based on a single message posted in
>its entirety is so
Um, yes, this is precisely what I've just said.
1. by posting to a CDR node, he implicitly consents to all duplication
caused by the CDR feeds, to search engines, individuals, archivers, other
CDR's, etc.
2. A book of all his posts would be clearly in violation of his copyright.
I'm unsure if a
Choate has given an implied consent for his posts to be redistributed
in certain ways. Much as Usenet participants do. He has probably
not given consent for all of his posts to be combined and sold by
Wired as a book (of course this is just a hypothetical, nobody would
buy it).
Choate, however, w
>From the "I'm gonna hate myself in the morning for this, but" files.
I believe Jim is correct that any postings he makes are protected by
copyright law. Remember that copyright law protects several rights of
the author of works, includind that of distribution.
In effect Jim is saying that what
At 04:52 PM 4/11/01 -0800, Daniel J. Boone wrote:
>Declan wrote:
>
> > Tim's point is on-target. Read up on freedom to contract.
>
>Been there, done that, have the law degree on my wall to prove it. My
>views on
>contract law could conceivably be incorrect, but they are not uninformed.
Dan,
You
Declan wrote:
> Tim's point is on-target. Read up on freedom to contract.
Been there, done that, have the law degree on my wall to prove it. My views on
contract law could conceivably be incorrect, but they are not uninformed.
> See also examples like Yahoo-Geocities a few years back, claiming
Yip, yip, yip, Yahoo!
On Wed, 11 Apr 2001, Daniel J. Boone wrote:
> I wrote:
>
> > >List owners have nothing to do with, and cannot affect, the intellectual
> > >property rights of list contributors. Your aspirations to the contrary
> > >notwithstanding.
>
> and Tim May responded:
>
> >
I wrote:
> >List owners have nothing to do with, and cannot affect, the intellectual
> >property rights of list contributors. Your aspirations to the contrary
> >notwithstanding.
and Tim May responded:
> So you're saying that it is impossible to set up a list (or a
> publisher, same difference
On Wed, 11 Apr 2001, Greg Newby wrote:
> In the real world, you don't even need to sign. Sending a letter
> to a newspaper or calling a radio station often implicitly gives
> permission to redistribute it in any form. (Ownership might
> still be an issue, but IP rights go to the paper or radio
On Wed, 11 Apr 2001, Daniel J. Boone wrote:
> List owners have nothing to do with, and cannot affect, the intellectual
> property rights of list contributors. Your aspirations to the contrary
> notwithstanding.
Actually they can if there is a contract that requires it and you as a IP
owner sig
Tim's point is on-target. Read up on freedom to contract.
See also examples like Yahoo-Geocities a few years back, claiming
IP rights in posts to its site (then abandoned, but that was due to
PR outcry, not to lack of enforceable contract).
-Declan
On Wed, Apr 11, 2001 at 10:29:03AM -0800, Dan
List owners have nothing to do with, and cannot affect, the intellectual
property rights of list contributors. Your aspirations to the contrary
notwithstanding.
-- Daniel
> The question is who establishes the rules that govern IP rights -- i.e.
> list owner policies.
>
> -Declan
But I'm not
> holding my breath
>
> -- Daniel
>
> - Original Message -
> From: Declan McCullagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Daniel J. Boone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 9:19 PM
> Subject: Re: P
On Tue, 10 Apr 2001, David Honig wrote:
> At 09:10 AM 4/7/01 -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
> >
> >Napster has a problem because they're distributing work that belongs to
> >somebody else.
> >
>
> They're not distributing anything but their software, and running
> an index-server.
Which is in effect
;
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 9:19 PM
Subject: Re: CDR: Re: Pleading the 5th
> Cute, but inaccurate. I never have questioned the ability of list
> owners to set their own list policies (I am a member of a number of
> mailing lists with do-not-forward policies).
>
> Cypherpunks,
Cute, but inaccurate. I never have questioned the ability of list
owners to set their own list policies (I am a member of a number of
mailing lists with do-not-forward policies).
Cypherpunks, on the other hand, is just a little different than a
private, invite-only mailing list that's run by one
I find this hilarious coming from Declan, who once (WAAY back in 1997) closed
one one of his previously open-subscription mailing lists because people were
*gasp* forwarding messages from it to other lists. His list policy was, if I
recall, "you own your words, no retransmission without your perm
On Fri, 6 Apr 2001, Reese wrote:
> Napster has a problem because what they are holding was initially purchased
> by someone, who then violated the copyright notice by .mp3 encoding it and
> uploading/making it available. They are a more lucrative target than the
> millions of somebodies, so the
3E92 6B99 2DCC
- Original Message -
From: "Declan McCullagh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Jim Choate" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2001 9:28 AM
Subject: Re: CDR: Re: Pleading the 5th
> You would have a valid point i
On Fri, 6 Apr 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> You would have a valid point if the Beasty Boys were in the habit of
> sending MP3s of their latest hits to cypherpunks.
What the hell does 'cypherpunks' have to do with it?
Come on, spell it out...
'implied consent'? Where? Who says? You? You don
You would have a valid point if the Beasty Boys were in the habit of
sending MP3s of their latest hits to cypherpunks.
-Declan
On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 07:33:37AM -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
>
> On Fri, 6 Apr 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>
> > Private property != intellecutal property. If anythin
On Fri, 6 Apr 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> Private property != intellecutal property. If anything, my "private
> property" claim is stronger than your IP one, since the bits are on MY
> server. :)
Then Napster should have no problem since 'possession' is 9/10's of the
law...
___
Private property != intellecutal property. If anything, my "private
property" claim is stronger than your IP one, since the bits are on MY
server. :)
-Declan
On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 10:41:47PM -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
>
> On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>
> > Amusing. So if I have
On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> Amusing. So if I have a cpunx archive, I can't place ads on it?
Sure you can. What you can't do is refuse to remove an item by its author.
And if you do make money on it they can sue for recovery of damages.
Like a said, a good test for ones concep
Amusing. So if I have a cpunx archive, I can't place ads on it?
I welcome your flurry of lawsuits. We already know about your
lawyers on retainer. Perhaps you can forward them come constitutional
amendments.
-Declan
On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 09:13:52PM -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
>
> On Thu, 5 Apr
On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, David Honig wrote:
> Jim, how do you feel about on-line collections, e.g., the venona and
> inet-one.com
> archives?
>
> [IMHO they are technically infringing our copyrights, but I personally
> think they perform a service ---slightly more for historians than for
> spammers
At 06:02 PM 4/5/01 -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
>
>I don't do interviews.
>
>I also own the copyright on everything I post to Cypherpunks. If it gets
>printed without my permission (and I won't give it) in a newspaper or
>other COMMERCIAL venture it is copyright infringement. You're free to post
>exce
On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> The problem with Choate's argument is that (besides that it's silly),
> he gives implied consent to redistribute by posting here. Also, as he claims
> to know, CDR is by nature distributed, and each node can set its own
> policy. Dont' like it? Don't
The problem with Choate's argument is that (besides that it's silly),
he gives implied consent to redistribute by posting here. Also, as he claims
to know, CDR is by nature distributed, and each node can set its own
policy. Dont' like it? Don't participate.
-Declan
On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 06
I don't do interviews.
I also own the copyright on everything I post to Cypherpunks. If it gets
printed without my permission (and I won't give it) in a newspaper or
other COMMERCIAL venture it is copyright infringement. You're free to post
excerpts. I believe ~200 lines is the maximum allowed u
On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 09:51:54PM -0700, Tim May wrote:
> Inasmuch as I think the Feds are trying to put together a RICO case
> for Cypherpunks being some kind of "continuing criminal conspiracy,"
So which of y'all do I write about next?
(Just a joke, folks, just a joke. I have no information
On Wed, 4 Apr 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> At Wed, 4 Apr 2001 17:52:46 -0500 (CDT), "J.A. Terranson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >On Wed, 4 Apr 2001, Anonymous wrote:
> >
> >
> >You may invoke the 5th for *any* question that *may* tend to incriminate
> >you, in *any* way. Certainl
At 10:29 PM 4/4/01 +0200, Anonymous wrote:
>In light of recent "situations" involving cpunks and the courts, I've been
>thinking about the 5th Amendment.
>
>I pose two questions:
>
>If called to testify in a criminal case, and asked the question "Are you
>known by any other names" (or a derivati
At Wed, 4 Apr 2001 17:52:46 -0500 (CDT), "J.A. Terranson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>On Wed, 4 Apr 2001, Anonymous wrote:
>
>
>You may invoke the 5th for *any* question that *may* tend to incriminate
>you, in *any* way. Certainly these hypotheticals apply. What scares
>me is the use of "i
On Wed, 4 Apr 2001, J.A. Terranson wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Apr 2001, Anonymous wrote:
>
> You may invoke the 5th for *any* question that *may* tend to incriminate
> you, in *any* way. Certainly these hypotheticals apply. What scares me
> is the use of "involuntary immunizations" by persecuters to
On Wed, 4 Apr 2001, Anonymous wrote:
You may invoke the 5th for *any* question that *may* tend to incriminate
you, in *any* way. Certainly these hypotheticals apply. What scares me
is the use of "involuntary immunizations" by persecuters to get around the
invocation...
> I pose two questions
In light of recent "situations" involving cpunks and the courts, I've been
thinking about the 5th Amendment.
I pose two questions:
If called to testify in a criminal case, and asked the question "Are you
known by any other names" (or a derivative of that question), could one
plead the fifth i
52 matches
Mail list logo
