benson@alcatraz.ksr.com (Benson Margulies) (05/23/87)
I received a slanderous (of Mark) piece of email in response to my posting. I considered posting it as an object lesson to all of the fact that there is more than one source of nastyness at work here. However, before taking this action which half the net seems to find unspeakable, I thought I would solicit any reasoned arguments. My position is this: if I received a piece of unsolicited USSnail that carred no copyright notice, that I could do whatever I wanted with it so long as I didn't misrepresent its content. Clearly, people think differently. Is this a matter of custom, legal rumor, or "ettiquette"? PS: several people have ragged on mark for complaining of being cut off from soc.women inaccurately. I suggest that you ask yourselves what you would have done if (a) you knew that the sysop had received demands to cut you off, and (b) you didn't see soc.women for several days. Would you calmly assume a technical failure? Don't bother to post or mail answers to the back end of this, clearly people will have quite a range of reactions. Benson I. Margulies Kendall Square Research Corp. harvard!ksr!benson All comments the responsibility ksr!benson@harvard.harvard.edu of the author, if anyone.
cetron@utah-cs.UUCP (Edward J Cetron) (05/24/87)
In article <151@ksr.UUCP> benson@ksr.UUCP () writes:
->I received a slanderous (of Mark) piece of email in response to my
->posting.
->I considered posting it as an object lesson to all of the fact that
->there is more than one source of nastyness at work here.
...
->Clearly, people think differently. Is this a matter of custom, legal
->rumor, or "ettiquette"?
I there WAS a reason to post it I personally think it reasonable. Any
mail coming to me without regards to copyright (that just means I can't copy
it) is available to me to post (not copy if paper). As for a copyright on
an e-mail, I think the law is somewhat unclear, but my personal opinion would
be to post it WITH the copyright notice.
HOWEVER NOTICE I SAID "IF THERE *WAS* A REASON" and in this case please
let this stuff die (or at least in news.misc)
->PS: several people have ragged on mark for complaining of being cut
->off from soc.women inaccurately. I suggest that you ask yourselves
->what you would have done if (a) you knew that the sysop had received
->demands to cut you off, and (b) you didn't see soc.women for several
->days. Would you calmly assume a technical failure?
now this CAN be construed somehow as a news.misc article. I agree
if a) and b) that one would be annoyed - but shouldn't one check with the
system admin? check with someone else on this system?? To just immediately
assume the worst AND THEN to start net.screaming at everyone about violations
of civil rights (which couldn't have been violated even if it was true) and
lawsuits is pure and simple obnoxiousness.
-edfair@ucbarpa.Berkeley.EDU (Erik E. Fair) (05/26/87)
It turns out that I was only partially correct in stating that paper mail sent through the U.S. Postal Service becomes property of the recipient. While this is true, copyright still resides with the sender, and thus the recipient must ask the sender for permission to publish before doing so. Whether we should (or are required to) treat electronic mail in the same fashion is another question. Erik E. Fair ucbvax!fair fair@ucbarpa.berkeley.edu