[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [dvd-discuss] Hang the RIAA in their own noose.
- To: "'dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu'" <dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu>
- Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Hang the RIAA in their own noose.
- From: Noah silva <nsilva(at)atari-source.com>
- Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 13:25:35 -0400 (EDT)
- In-Reply-To: <E06ADA0073926048AD304115DD8AB6BC9D67A8@mail.onetouch.com>
- Reply-To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
> > > would have to ask permission.
> >
> > Except that if the web archive is considered public, then you are
> > knowingly posting to a public place, so I think the times
> > copying it is
> > just taking a public document and distributing it.
> >
> > (and at any rate, I certainly wouldn't post top-secret info
> > to this list).
> >
>
> The Weekly Reader in San Diego is a newspaper that is
> distributed for free. So you are saying that any other
> publication can just lift articles from it and reprint
> them w/o permission because it was free?
>
> Copyright doesn't work that way.
>
There's a big different though. The paper is "free" financially, but
probably not copyright wise. I would be willing to bet they put up
copyright notices on the paper.
Your post, published on a mailing list, likely isn't considered
protected. By definition, when you post something to the public without
attaching a copyright notice, you lose protection. You know the list is
available to the public through the web archives. I would say google
Groups has no problem archiving millions of usenet conversations for this
very reason.
-- noah silva