dbrillha@dave.mis.semi.harris.com (Dave Brillhart) (06/19/91)
Recently we had a minor Notes (similar to Netnews - general access
to postings but limited to our company) war. A manager responded
to one of the parties involved via direct E-Mail. This party posted the
E-Mail message to the "world" and followed it with comments about it's
patronizing tone...
Besides the obvious ethical problems, are there any legal ramifications
to this action?
-- Dave Brillhart
Harris Semiconductordag@fciva.FRANKCAP.COM (Daniel A. Graifer) (06/20/91)
In article <1991Jun19.135529.25984@mlb.semi.harris.com> dcb@dave.mis.semi.harris.com writes: >[...]A manager responded >to one of the parties involved via direct E-Mail. This party posted the >E-Mail message to the "world" [...] > >Besides the obvious ethical problems, are there any legal ramifications >to this action? I'm not a lawyer, but I believe I heard somewhere that mail, once sent, is considered to be property of the recipient unless the originator explicitly makes a prior claim of copyright. (ie. If I send a copyrighted article I've written to a magazine editor, I don't loose my copyright by that action.) Just as in spoken conversation, it's a private matter between the two parties. If you are told something that's explicitly in confidence, it's up to your sense of ethics whether or not it should be revealed to others. A manager that criticizes an employee without explicityly asking that the criticism remain in confidence can assume it will be discussed with other employees. Dan -- Daniel A. Graifer Coastal Capital Funding Corp. Sr. Vice President, Financial Systems 7900 Westpark Dr. Suite A-130 (703)821-3244 McLean, VA 22102 uunet!fciva!dag fciva.FRANKCAP.COM!dag@uunet.uu.net
gary@sci34hub.sci.com (Gary Heston) (06/20/91)
In article <1991Jun19.135529.25984@mlb.semi.harris.com> dcb@dave.mis.semi.harris.com writes: >Recently we had a minor Notes (similar to Netnews - general access >to postings but limited to our company) war. A manager responded >to one of the parties involved via direct E-Mail. This party posted the >E-Mail message to the "world" and followed it with comments about it's >patronizing tone... >Besides the obvious ethical problems, are there any legal ramifications >to this action? As long as the authorship was properly attributed, there would be no violation of copyright laws, I think. Otherwise, unless the company had guaranteed privacy under the ECPA, I don't see anything illegal about it. You could have your corporate counsel look into it. BTW, I think it's more a matter of convention, rather than ethics, where posting of email is concerned. -- Gary Heston System Mismanager and technoflunky uunet!sci34hub!gary or My opinions, not theirs. SCI Systems, Inc. gary@sci34hub.sci.com I support drug testing. I believe every public official should be given a shot of sodium pentathol and ask "Which laws have you broken this week?".
frank@croton.nyo.dec.com (Frank Wortner) (06/20/91)
In article <610@fciva.FRANKCAP.COM>, dag@fciva.FRANKCAP.COM (Daniel A. Graifer) writes: |>I'm not a lawyer, but I believe I heard somewhere that mail, once sent, is |>considered to be property of the recipient unless the originator explicitly |>makes a prior claim of copyright. I'd check your sources if I were you. If memory serves, there have been a number of recent cases which seemed to establish exactly the opposite: that letters are the property of the *sender* (who is, afterall, the author of the letter, just as a writer is the author of a book). Be very careful when you make statements about copyright, patent, or other intellectual property law. It's too easy to get into BIG TROUBLE. If you have any doubts or questions about copyright or other legal issues, consult a lawyer. You could save yourself tremendous amounts of legal grief. If anyone cares to continue this topic, I've directed followups to misc.legal. They certainly don't belong in comp.unix.ultrix. Frank "Next case!" :-)
burns@endor.uucp (John Burns) (06/22/91)
dag@fciva.UUCP (Daniel A. Graifer) writes: >I'm not a lawyer, but I believe I heard somewhere that mail, once sent, is >considered to be property of the recipient unless the originator explicitly >makes a prior claim of copyright. (ie. If I send a copyrighted article I've >written to a magazine editor, I don't loose my copyright by that action.) No, the writer retains copyright unless explicitly transferred. When you submit an article to a journal that wants the copyright for itself they make you sign a document transferring the copyright to them. The document itself is subject to ordinary property laws; in the case of e-mail, the medium is a computer that already belongs to someone. In the case of regular letters, the piece of paper belongs to the recipient, but the copyright for the words written on it belongs to the writer. Since the manager has the copyright, it's technically illegal to publish it. On the other hand, since the intent was to illustrate what the manager's ideas (non-copyrightable) were, not to derive benefit from publishing the particular expression (copyrighted), the grounds for a lawsuit are extremely weak. >Just as in spoken conversation, it's a private matter between the two parties. >If you are told something that's explicitly in confidence, it's up to >your sense of ethics whether or not it should be revealed to others. Just so. I don't think the law has a real foothold here until the manager decides to fire the employee for insubordination, in which case the letter and its republication may provide evidence for either side in a suit over unjust termination. Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer. Harvard has enough already. John A. Burns (burns@thurifer.harvard.edu, burns@huche1.bitnet)