Random thought

[Tyler Baker]

Ann Navarro wrote:

> At 09:45 AM 9/13/99 -0700, Tim Bray wrote:
> >I disagree.  I don't think you can stop republication of email that's
> >been sent to a known-to-be-public mailing list.  I base this on the
> >fact that it is very nearly impossible for the sender of a private
> >email to stop the recipient from printing it.  We are all recipients
> >of all this email.
>
> We are, just as we're all recipients of C|Net's digital dispatch (if you're
> subbed), any other email newsletter, the daily paper newspaper, and letters
> from your  Aunt Sophie. Doesn't make them any less protectable under
> copyright law. -- That's akin to saying that anything posted on the Web
> (via the archives) loses copyright protection, which of course is not the
> case.

On an XML-Dev list talking about legal issues when few if any people here are qualified to
answer them does nobody any good. I am not a lawyer and when I have specific issues that I am
not completely aware of, then I call up our lawyer and get them resolved, for a fee of course
)-:

Maybe we should have a xml-legal list or something like that...

> >It's an open secret that there's a journalist from C|Net who's been
> >tipped off that there's maybe a story here and has been sniffing around.
>
> Yes, he was. In fact, I talked to him at length on the phone last week, and
> latest word, as of this morning,  is that the story is probably too arcane
> for their audience (and not nearly as sensational as the "tip" he received
> made it out to be). No final decision made yet by the editorial folks.
>
> That said, I'll be very clear: my participation in this list, or any list,
> does not in any way equate to granting unending or irrevocable permission
> for someone to repackage and republish my words.
>
> Passing around emails via forward, or looking things up in the archive is
> one thing. *Publishing them* is entirely different.

Well ethically I think you have a good point Ann, but in the legal sense from what I know
(again I reiterate I have no law degree or experience in intellectual property law) I believe
that Tim is correct and furthermore for something to be copyrightable it must be creative,
original, and fixated. Someone's personal comments upon reflection on an issue they did not
create I don't believe are copyrightable. Music lyrics are copyrightable, but someone's random
comments that change from day to day on HTML or XML or whatever I really don't think would
pass the test of being creative, original, and fixated.

Of course I am only speaking with regard to copyright issues in the United States. In other
lands, things may be an entirely different ballgame.

Tyler


xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)