Re: [dvd-discuss] ``irreparable damage to my client''

[microlenz(at)earthlink.net]

THe problem is that Sara  seems to have licensed it to everybody and now wants
 to unlicense it....(and Sara doesn't seem to understand what a non-de-plume 
is....)

I'm rusty on the UCC but more modern contracts do not require the classical 
"meeting of the minds". THey require that certain sets of conditions be 
satisfied and a contract exists. Granted this is for commercial applicaton but 
if every scrap of writing, every posting, every email, every 'hehe" or new 
emotive is going to claim "copyright" then maybe a Uniform Internet Code is 
required at this time.

On 27 Apr 2002 at 17:28, Roy Murphy wrote:

Date sent:      	Sat, 27 Apr 2002 17:28:53 -0400
From:           	Roy Murphy <murphy@panix.com>
To:             	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
Subject:        	Re: [dvd-discuss] ``irreparable damage to my client''
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

> 'Twas brillig when Michael A Rolenz scrobe:
> > if it is a license then who did she negociate it with?...If USENET,
> > then usenet has a whole set of conditions (as another post pointed
> > out) and republishing stuff is part of it.....If it's a implied
> > non exclusive license then she can't later try to make it an
> > exclusive one. ...
> 
> That's one of the differences between a license and a contract.  I
> contract requires "a meeting of the minds" or actual agreement (as
> well as offer and acceptance and consideration).  Many licenses are
> contracts, but they do not have to be.
> 
> By virtue of having voluntarially posted the story to Usenet, she
> consents to the events which posting imply: that the message will
> be duplicated among servers participating in Usenet subject to the
> Distribution:, Expires: and, probably, X-archive: headers and that
> the material will be distributed to Usenet readers.
> 
> Distribution in other forms, such as the web, may or may not be
> included in such a non-exclusive license.  It would really require
> a court to settle such a dispute.
> 
> A "non-exclusive" licence means that the licensee (Sara Glover)
> may license the material to others.  By virtue of posting to Usenet,
> one does not relinquish the right to otherwise license your material.
> 
> --  
> Roy Murphy      \ CSpice -- A mailing list for Clergy Spouses> 
> murphy@panix.com \  http://www.panix.com/~murphy/CSpice.html>