At 7/12/2005 03:49 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
Consider the difference between posting to any unmoderated Usenet
group and posting to the Finale list.
It's a *huge* difference.
I guess you need to explain why there is ANY difference, other than having
to subscribe ahead of time.
Since ANYONE
Phil Daley schrieb:
Here you go:
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 13:06:43 EST
From: MX mailing list processor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PLEASE READ THIS MESSAGE AND RETAIN IT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE
You have been added to mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phil,
you may not have noticed, but the
At 7/13/2005 08:09 AM, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
Phil Daley schrieb:
Here you go:
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 13:06:43 EST
From: MX mailing list processor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PLEASE READ THIS MESSAGE AND RETAIN IT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE
You have been added to mailing list
On 13 Jul 2005 at 7:00, Phil Daley wrote:
At 7/12/2005 03:49 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
Consider the difference between posting to any unmoderated Usenet
group and posting to the Finale list. It's a *huge* difference.
I guess you need to explain why there is ANY difference, other than
Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
At 10:20 PM 7/11/05 -0400, Aaron Sherber wrote:
There's some other message archive subscribed as well. Frankly, as
long as SHSU isn't providing a proper searchable archive of their
own, I see this as a good thing.
Not I. I subscribed to a private list.
I
At 10:56 PM 7/11/2005, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
Not I. I subscribed to a private list. If this were a Yahoo group, that
would be a different story.
I'm not sure what the distinction is here. Anyone in the world can
currently join this list. Once they join, they can in 5 minutes
download the
At 08:39 AM 7/12/05 +0100, Owain Sutton wrote:
Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
At 10:20 PM 7/11/05 -0400, Aaron Sherber wrote:
There's some other message archive subscribed as well. Frankly, as
long as SHSU isn't providing a proper searchable archive of their
own, I see this as a good thing.
At 07:28 AM 7/12/2005, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
This is not about my email address. This is about my content. I did not
expect a public archive, or else I'd be posting to the web forum. The
extent of the 'contract' for posting is on the list info site, and nowhere
is a public presentation of
At 07:42 AM 7/12/05 -0400, Aaron Sherber wrote:
At 07:28 AM 7/12/2005, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
This is not about my email address. This is about my content. I did not
expect a public archive, or else I'd be posting to the web forum. The
extent of the 'contract' for posting is on the list
On Jul 12, 2005, at 8:08 AM, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
At 07:42 AM 7/12/05 -0400, Aaron Sherber wrote:
I'm just saying that it doesn't matter to me
because it doesn't expose anything that wasn't already exposed. If
you disagree with this assessment, I'd be interested in hearing why.
At 7/12/2005 09:13 AM, Christopher Smith wrote:
I agree with Aaron.
This is a very good point. Dennis has already made generally available
for free a whole cartload of his work (musical and verbal) while
retaining his copyright, on his various websites. No doubt he considers
his writings here
On Jul 12, 2005, at 9:27 AM, Phil Daley wrote:
At 7/12/2005 09:13 AM, Christopher Smith wrote:
I agree with Aaron.
This is a very good point. Dennis has already made generally available
for free a whole cartload of his work (musical and verbal) while
retaining his copyright, on his various
At 09:27 AM 7/12/05 -0400, Phil Daley wrote:
Then he needs to mark every message with a Copyright statement.
Otherwise he hasn't a leg to stand on, legally.
Not quite. To initiate a lawsuit, registration is required. But since 1988,
section 401a says that copyright notice may be placed on
Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
[snip]
Intellectual property protection is not merely for the benefit of
corporations. It subsists in my postings and in your postings and in
everyone else's postings as well as in Finale's software -- or I could
happily be posting Finale on my website. The exchange
Christopher Smith wrote:
[snip] This is a very good point. Dennis has already made generally
available
for free a whole cartload of his work (musical and verbal) while
retaining his copyright, on his various websites. No doubt he considers
his writings here to be similar.
I, on the other
Phil Daley wrote:
At 7/12/2005 09:13 AM, Christopher Smith wrote:
I agree with Aaron.
This is a very good point. Dennis has already made generally available
for free a whole cartload of his work (musical and verbal) while
retaining his copyright, on his various websites. No doubt he
Christopher Smith wrote:
On Jul 12, 2005, at 9:27 AM, Phil Daley wrote:
At 7/12/2005 09:13 AM, Christopher Smith wrote:
I agree with Aaron.
This is a very good point. Dennis has already made generally
available for free a whole cartload of his work (musical and
verbal) while retaining his
All those archives are going to say, in response to our complaints and
requests to stop, is Oh, yeah? Sez who?
It's quite possible that if the site is hosted by a company who takes legal
matters seriously they will close the site down if it they judge it to be
against the law - most of the
dhbailey schrieb:
Those external archives aren't going to listen to any of us, unless we
back it up with a lawsuit which has monetary and punitive damages attached.
Ah, now I am getting interested. How much do you think would be in it
for me? Couple of thousand? Millions? I may be
From: Dennis Bathory-Kitsz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
I'm looking for consensus from the group before I send a formal takedown
notice to their web hosts.
I'm with you.
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
At 04:02 PM 7/12/05 +0100, Simon Troup wrote:
Is Dennis in software or something?
Not anymore, except maybe this:
http://maltedmedia.com/people/bathory/killer.html
I've just been a (not-a-lawyer) student of copyright for several decades.
And since I am at last trying to live on my pitiful
On 12/07/05, dhbailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(even though it may be called private by its owners, since anybody in
the world is free to subscribe, with no qualifications to be met nor
stipulations placed, the courts may view this as a public list)
I subscribe to a couple of other Mailman
On Jul 12, 2005, at 11:26 AM, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
dhbailey schrieb:
Those external archives aren't going to listen to any of us, unless
we back it up with a lawsuit which has monetary and punitive damages
attached.
Ah, now I am getting interested. How much do you think would be in it
Phil Daley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Then he needs to mark every message with a Copyright statement.
Or, even more directly, he could put a header line in each email that
says X-No-Archive: true. From what I've seen, all these mail
collectors do respect such requests to not archive those
Christopher Smith schrieb:
Heh, heh! You ARE a funny guy, Johannes! 8-)
Well, thank you Christopher. After not getting Lawrence's joke this
feels really good!
But wait, that makes my post more valuable in terms of copyright, does
it not? More money for funnier posts, obviously.
(Not
On Jul 11, 2005, at 11:59 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote:
I'm with Aaron. I really don't care if my email address is available
for anyone to see in the Google cache, but I DO care about having
searchable archives, and since we de-linked from Google, that's
impossible.
I also agree with
At 7/12/2005 11:26 AM, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
Note: This Email is copyrighted. It may not be redistributed by anyone
without written permission of the author.
© 2005 by Johannes Gebauer, Berlin, Germany. All rights reserved.
You make think this is funny, but that's what I think it would take
At 7/12/2005 12:04 PM, Stephen Peters wrote:
Phil Daley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Then he needs to mark every message with a Copyright statement.
Or, even more directly, he could put a header line in each email that
says X-No-Archive: true. From what I've seen, all these mail
collectors do
Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
I'm looking for consensus from the group before I send a formal takedown
notice to their web hosts.
Yes, I acknowledge that it is your creative work. I see the discussions
here as on the same order as if we were meeting in a publick house for
discussion. Yes,
Johannes Gebauer wrote:
dhbailey schrieb:
Those external archives aren't going to listen to any of us, unless we
back it up with a lawsuit which has monetary and punitive damages
attached.
Ah, now I am getting interested. How much do you think would be in it
for me? Couple of
On 11 Jul 2005 at 23:28, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 7/11/2005 6:17:58 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Isn't there something illegal or unethical about this?
Wait a second. Let's differentiate between illegal and unethical on
the one hand, . . .
I
On 11 Jul 2005 at 23:59, Darcy James Argue wrote:
On 11 Jul 2005, at 10:20 PM, Aaron Sherber wrote:
At 09:15 PM 7/11/2005, David W. Fenton wrote:
http://www.opensubscriber.com/messages/finale@shsu.edu/416.html
Isn't there something illegal or unethical about this?
There's some
David W. Fenton wrote:
On 11 Jul 2005 at 22:56, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
At 10:20 PM 7/11/05 -0400, Aaron Sherber wrote:
There's some other message archive subscribed as well. Frankly, as
long as SHSU isn't providing a proper searchable archive of their
own, I see this as a good thing.
On 12 Jul 2005 at 7:42, Aaron Sherber wrote:
At 07:28 AM 7/12/2005, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
This is not about my email address. This is about my content. I did
not expect a public archive, or else I'd be posting to the web
forum. The extent of the 'contract' for posting is on the list
On 12 Jul 2005 at 9:13, Christopher Smith wrote:
On Jul 12, 2005, at 8:08 AM, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
At 07:42 AM 7/12/05 -0400, Aaron Sherber wrote:
I'm just saying that it doesn't matter to me
because it doesn't expose anything that wasn't already exposed. If
you disagree with
On 12 Jul 2005 at 8:39, Owain Sutton wrote:
Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
At 10:20 PM 7/11/05 -0400, Aaron Sherber wrote:
There's some other message archive subscribed as well. Frankly, as
long as SHSU isn't providing a proper searchable archive of their
own, I see this as a good thing.
On 11 Jul 2005 at 20:16, Ken Durling wrote:
There are literally thousands of groups on this list. I see a few
others, like photography groups, that I belong to. I don't know. I
think RSS is probably something like a Google for discussion groups...
This is not about RSS, which has nothing
At 02:56 PM 7/12/2005, David W. Fenton wrote:
And that's how I discovered this. The point is that posts that I've
made for one audience (you subscribers to this list) are being made
available to everyone in the world,
But David, they've *always* been available to everyone in the world.
Anyone
On 12 Jul 2005 at 10:44, dhbailey wrote:
Christopher Smith wrote:
[snip] This is a very good point. Dennis has already made generally
available for free a whole cartload of his work (musical and verbal)
while retaining his copyright, on his various websites. No doubt he
considers his
On 12 Jul 2005 at 10:38, dhbailey wrote:
Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
[snip]
Intellectual property protection is not merely for the benefit of
corporations. It subsists in my postings and in your postings and in
everyone else's postings as well as in Finale's software -- or I
could
On 12 Jul 2005 at 10:53, dhbailey wrote:
Christopher Smith wrote:
On Jul 12, 2005, at 9:27 AM, Phil Daley wrote:
At 7/12/2005 09:13 AM, Christopher Smith wrote:
I agree with Aaron.
This is a very good point. Dennis has already made generally
available for free a whole
On 12 Jul 2005 at 11:55, Christopher Smith wrote:
On Jul 12, 2005, at 11:26 AM, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
dhbailey schrieb:
Those external archives aren't going to listen to any of us, unless
we back it up with a lawsuit which has monetary and punitive
damages attached.
Ah, now I am
On 12 Jul 2005 at 12:17, Andrew Stiller wrote:
On Jul 11, 2005, at 11:59 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote:
I'm with Aaron. I really don't care if my email address is
available for anyone to see in the Google cache, but I DO care about
having searchable archives, and since we de-linked from
On 12 Jul 2005 at 13:46, Phil Daley wrote:
At 7/12/2005 11:26 AM, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
Note: This Email is copyrighted. It may not be redistributed by
anyone without written permission of the author. © 2005 by Johannes
Gebauer, Berlin, Germany. All rights reserved.
You make think
On 12 Jul 2005 at 13:27, Noel Stoutenburg wrote:
Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
I'm looking for consensus from the group before I send a formal
takedown notice to their web hosts.
Yes, I acknowledge that it is your creative work. I see the
discussions here as on the same order as if we
On 12 Jul 2005 at 14:43, dhbailey wrote:
Johannes Gebauer wrote:
dhbailey schrieb:
Those external archives aren't going to listen to any of us, unless
we back it up with a lawsuit which has monetary and punitive
damages attached.
Ah, now I am getting interested. How much do you
David W. Fenton wrote:
[snip]
This is about archiving a mailing list without permission of the
subscribers or the list owner.
Do we know that this was done without the permission of the list owner?
Has Henry Howey specifically come forward and said he didn't grant
permisssion?
And is he
David W. Fenton wrote:
On 12 Jul 2005 at 10:38, dhbailey wrote:
Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
[snip]
Intellectual property protection is not merely for the benefit of
corporations. It subsists in my postings and in your postings and in
everyone else's postings as well as in Finale's software
On 12 Jul 2005 at 15:35, Aaron Sherber wrote:
At 02:56 PM 7/12/2005, David W. Fenton wrote:
And that's how I discovered this. The point is that posts that I've
made for one audience (you subscribers to this list) are being made
available to everyone in the world,
But David, they've
David W. Fenton wrote:
On 12 Jul 2005 at 13:27, Noel Stoutenburg wrote:
Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
I'm looking for consensus from the group before I send a formal
takedown notice to their web hosts.
Yes, I acknowledge that it is your creative work. I see the
discussions here as on
On 12/07/05, David W. Fenton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
These sites only work because they can subscribe to the list. If
their domains are blocked, the problem is gone, no lawyer required.
Except for the messages already archived on their servers...
But otherwise that seems like a good solution
On 12 Jul 2005 at 17:51, Andrew Stiller wrote:
On Jul 12, 2005, at 4:01 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
it's legal hooey, since a
private list that publicizes its existence and accepts anyone who
signs up is not in fact private by either statute or case law.
On the fact of it, that
At 05:51 PM 07/12/2005, Andrew Stiller wrote:
Trying to exercise control of such utterances after they leave one's
mouth or keyboard is like nothing so much as saving one's hair and
nail clippings. And getting indignant at what the barber does with
them w.o your permission.
Funny you should
http://www.opensubscriber.com/messages/finale@shsu.edu/416.html
Isn't there something illegal or unethical about this?
--
David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton
David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
On Jul 11, 2005, at 9:15 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
http://www.opensubscriber.com/messages/finale@shsu.edu/416.html
Isn't there something illegal or unethical about this?
I dunno. The email addresses are erased, even when quoted in a message,
otherwise it's just like any other archive.
On 11 Jul 2005 at 21:32, Christopher Smith wrote:
On Jul 11, 2005, at 9:15 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
http://www.opensubscriber.com/messages/finale@shsu.edu/416.html
Isn't there something illegal or unethical about this?
I dunno. The email addresses are erased, even when quoted in a
At 09:15 PM 7/11/2005, David W. Fenton wrote:
http://www.opensubscriber.com/messages/finale@shsu.edu/416.html
Isn't there something illegal or unethical about this?
There's some other message archive subscribed as well. Frankly, as
long as SHSU isn't providing a proper searchable archive of
At 10:20 PM 7/11/05 -0400, Aaron Sherber wrote:
There's some other message archive subscribed as well. Frankly, as
long as SHSU isn't providing a proper searchable archive of their
own, I see this as a good thing.
Not I. I subscribed to a private list. If this were a Yahoo group, that
would be
There are literally thousands of groups on this list. I see a few others,
like photography groups, that I belong to. I don't know. I think RSS is
probably something like a Google for discussion groups...
Ken
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
In a message dated 7/11/2005 6:17:58 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Isn't there something illegal or unethical about this?
Wait a second. Let's differentiate between "illegal and unethical" on the one hand, and the realities of cyberspace on the other. In the latter case,
On 11 Jul 2005, at 10:20 PM, Aaron Sherber wrote:
At 09:15 PM 7/11/2005, David W. Fenton wrote:
http://www.opensubscriber.com/messages/finale@shsu.edu/416.html
Isn't there something illegal or unethical about this?
There's some other message archive subscribed as well. Frankly, as
long as
61 matches
Mail list logo
