Announcement of Final Judgment on Internet Libel
Legal/Griffis Consulting
This message is to announce the final decision of January 14, 1998, of
the
Tenth Judicial Circuit
of Alabama, Civil Division
in the matter of
Katherine Griffis, Plaintiff
vs.
Marianne Luban, Defendant
Case No. CV 97-5873
Summary of Action: Defendant was found liable for defaming Plaintiff
due to statements made by Defendant on these Usenet newsgroups and
other forums from the period of December 17, 1996 through the date of
Judgment (January 14, 1998). An award of monetary damages was made to
Plaintiff, as well as the issuance of a Permanent Injunction against
the Defendant for any future such statements, which are specifically
defined in the Injunction.
A copy of this Injunction may be viewed on the World Wide Web at the
following URL:
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/2845/index.html
Any inquiries to this message should be directed only to
grif-co...@geocities.com
Saida
Katherine Griffis may think her legal dealings are over but, in fact,
they are just beginning. The judgment she won in Alabama by default
does NOT mean any of the allegations she made against me are true. In
fact, they are completely false and distort the truth in every possible
way. They could never have been proven to be true in a trial situation.
Now Ms. Griffis will have to come to Minnesota to fight MY lawsuit. The
fact that I have not heard anything about this "judgment" previous to my
seeing it posted on the Internet, says volumes about the sort of person
Katherine Griffis is.
Here is a letter I received from a personal friend of Ms. Griffis
admitting that she was subscribed to my mailing list under an alias
(spying on me) and that she exaggerates her credentials just as I have
always said she does. I have NEVER said anything about Katherine
Griffis that is not absolutely the truth. I don't like to show my
private mail, but Griffis has asked for this in spades. Why don't you
sue HIM, bitch?
Subj: PRIVATE
Date: 97-12-18 03:04:56 EST
From: geoffre...@yale.edu (Graham)
To: Osiri...@AOL.COM
Hi, Marianne,
Well, I certainly did not expect the shit to be hitting the fan on your
list which has generally been delightfully free of this kind of scandal.
You have been doing an excellent job of keeping things that way.
You leave me no choice but to admit that I knew Katherine was
subscribed, since she had told me that she was. However, please here me
out on this. I have not had a whole lot to do with Katherine in quite
some time. I have gotten tired of her in most respects. I do not like
her attitude that much, and this has put a damper on communicating with
her much at all. Now, I realize that you probably would be pretty angry
that she was there, but I did not consider it my business to interfere
and report anything to you about it. I realize from your post earlier
that you feel that anyone who would not have told you that she was there
cannot be your friend. The funny thing is that I never questioned my
feelings of friendship to you, though I must admit that what you had to
say earlier did make me feel very guilty, since it apparently has let
you down. This is the reason it has taken me so long to respond. I
simply did not know what to say to you, but I spent some time meditating
about it and decided that honesty is the best policy, and the second
part of that was to then figure out what I really believed was the truth
for me in this matter. Moreover, I think she behaved relatively well and
did not seem to be sniping at you or hurting you in any unseemly way, so
I figured that her presence there was harmless and that telling you
about it would only cause more trouble. On the other hand, after
seeing what Christina had to say about the legal implications of her
being there in disguise, my eyes were suddenly opened to unsavory
possibilities which I had never imagined. But, on the brighter side of
that situation is the fact that you never once, until today even
mentioned her name on this list, so she cannot have been able to collect
any "incrimintating" evidence whatsoever. Maybe if it had ever occured
to me that there were some legal misdeeds taking place in that she was
present, I would have taken a different stance, and turned her in to
you. But, mostly, where Katherine Griffis is concerned of late, I do
not give it much thought.
Much of what you have had to say about her is ultimately true. She is
pompous and pretentious and she does put on airs that are not befitting
her particular education. I am sorry if you think that I have been
betraying you, but I have to say in my defense that I have not ever felt
that I have been doing so. Perhaps this is not very inciteful on my
part, but I have never wished you any harm, and I do not, as a general
rule discuss you with Griffis, or anyone for that matter. I admire you
mostly, and I think you have been doing a wonderful service to people by
maintaining your list and devoting so much love and energy into this
field. I think you are a good enough judge of character and motives to
see that I have meant you no harm, and that I mostly think you are a
fine person. I would like to be allowed to continue to participate on
Osiris, but if you feel that I am not welcome on your list, it is your
prerogative to unsubscribe me. I don't like being in this position of
having to confess to you that I had knowledge of her presence,
especially, since I never wanted to know this information, nor am I all
that wrapped up in her affairs, and I do disapprove of her trying to
take you to court, and I have said as much to her, and this has probably
been the main cause of the present distance between me and her. So, you
do what you think is right. If you don't want me to participate here, I
will gracefully "get out" as you put it. However, I want you to know
that I do not feel animosity toward you, and I will be sorry to end my
rewarding contacts with you and the other subscribers.
So, that is the truth, and I don't suppose there is much else that I can
say. This message is for you alone, and I do not want it to pass from
your desktop to anyone else. If you want me to make some kind of public
statement or apology, I am willing to do so. We can negotiate that if
you like. I only ask that you not pressure me to defame or humiliate
anyone else, and that includes Katherine, even though I am not her
biggest supporter these days. I just don't do internet smearing, and
that is a strict rule as far as I am concerned.
Yours, Geoff
Peter T. Daniels
Saida wrote:
>
> Here is a letter I received from a personal friend of Ms. Griffis
> admitting that she was subscribed to my mailing list under an alias
> (spying on me) and that she exaggerates her credentials just as I have
> always said she does. I have NEVER said anything about Katherine
> Griffis that is not absolutely the truth. I don't like to show my
> private mail, but Griffis has asked for this in spades. Why don't you
> sue HIM, bitch?
The writer of the letter would be well within his legal rights to sue
for breach of copyright, especially as the quoted material expressly
requests that it not be made public.
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@worldnet.att.net
Akan Ifriqiya
In article <35021B...@PioneerPlanet.infi.net>,
sa...@PioneerPlanet.infi.net says...
>Here is a letter I received from a personal friend of Ms. Griffis
>admitting that she was subscribed to my mailing list under an alias
>(spying on me) and that she exaggerates her credentials just as I have
>always said she does. I have NEVER said anything about Katherine
>Griffis that is not absolutely the truth. I don't like to show my
>private mail, but Griffis has asked for this in spades. Why don't you
>sue HIM, bitch?
>
This exchange between you and Katherine really is without public interest.
But now I understand, you are not a muslim. Perhaps you might take care to
learn some politeness if you are going to go by muslim name like Saida and
use foul language in public? It really is very unbecoming.
Ramira Naka
Saida
Akan Ifriqiya wrote:
>
> In article <35021B...@PioneerPlanet.infi.net>,
> sa...@PioneerPlanet.infi.net says...
> >admitting that she was subscribed to my mailing list under an alias
> >(spying on me) and that she exaggerates her credentials just as I have
> >always said she does. I have NEVER said anything about Katherine
> >Griffis that is not absolutely the truth. I don't like to show my
> >private mail, but Griffis has asked for this in spades. Why don't you
> >sue HIM, bitch?
> >
>
> But now I understand, you are not a muslim. Perhaps you might take care to
> learn some politeness if you are going to go by muslim name like Saida and
> use foul language in public? It really is very unbecoming.
>
> Ramira Naka
Why don't you mind your own business, Ali Baba? I never claimed to be a
Muslim. And there are plenty of people who have had "Arabic" names who
weren't Muslims--like Copts and Jews. Another thing--why do you have a
forged email address?
Saida
Peter T. Daniels wrote:
(snip)
> > always said she does. I have NEVER said anything about Katherine
> > Griffis that is not absolutely the truth. I don't like to show my
> > private mail, but Griffis has asked for this in spades. Why don't you
> > sue HIM, bitch?
>
> The writer of the letter would be well within his legal rights to sue
> for breach of copyright, especially as the quoted material expressly
> requests that it not be made public.
> --
> Peter T. Daniels gram...@worldnet.att.net
You are wrong. There is no such thing as "private" email and very
little in cyberspace is "secure". Normally, I do keep my personal
correspondence private, but this individual is a two-faced weasel who
played both ends against the middle and deserves no consideration. Let
him sue me. He can have what's left after Griffis collects her share
:-)
If you write me a letter by snail mail, whose property does it become
once I receive it? Mine, of course. I can do whatever I like with it
and, if you are so stupid as to write me a letter that might get you in
trouble with, say, your wife, that is your problem. Can you sue me for
showing your wife a signed note from you saying I am the love of your
life? Telling somebody to keep something private does not obligate them
to do so. An email message is not subject to copyright laws.
Doug Weller
On Sun, 08 Mar 1998 10:22:07 -0600, in sci.archaeology, Saida wrote:
>Akan Ifriqiya wrote:
>>
>>
>> This exchange between you and Katherine really is without public interest.
>> But now I understand, you are not a muslim. Perhaps you might take care to
>> learn some politeness if you are going to go by muslim name like Saida and
>> use foul language in public? It really is very unbecoming.
>>
>> Ramira Naka
>
>Why don't you mind your own business, Ali Baba?
I was hoping to stay out of this, but if Marianne is going to stoop to racist
attacks like this, I'm back in. Ramira's posts are always useful and
constructive, and to treat him like this is, well, perhaps symptomatic of the
reason she found herself the subject of a lawsuit.
> I never claimed to be a
>Muslim. And there are plenty of people who have had "Arabic" names who
>weren't Muslims--like Copts and Jews. Another thing--why do you have a
>forged email address?
He has signed his name clearly, unlike you when you post as Nubkhas (I guess
it's none of my business why you hide your name and don't post as Saida
sometimes). And it's strange you object to it when you didn't object to your
suupporter 'Harper' forging his email address. Ah well, no surprises here.
Doug
Doug Weller
On Sun, 08 Mar 1998 10:31:43 -0600, in sci.archaeology, Saida wrote:
>
>You are wrong. There is no such thing as "private" email and very
>little in cyberspace is "secure".
Whatever the law may be, Saida has been around long enough to know that it is
the height of rudeness to post private email.
Doug
Peter T. Daniels
Saida wrote:
>
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> (snip)
> > > Griffis that is not absolutely the truth. I don't like to show my
> > > private mail, but Griffis has asked for this in spades. Why don't you
> > > sue HIM, bitch?
> >
> > for breach of copyright, especially as the quoted material expressly
> > requests that it not be made public.
> > --
> > Peter T. Daniels gram...@worldnet.att.net
>
> correspondence private, but this individual is a two-faced weasel who
> played both ends against the middle and deserves no consideration. Let
> him sue me. He can have what's left after Griffis collects her share
> :-)
>
> If you write me a letter by snail mail, whose property does it become
> once I receive it? Mine, of course. I can do whatever I like with it
> and, if you are so stupid as to write me a letter that might get you in
> trouble with, say, your wife, that is your problem. Can you sue me for
> showing your wife a signed note from you saying I am the love of your
> life? Telling somebody to keep something private does not obligate them
> to do so. An email message is not subject to copyright laws.
You're as ignorant of copyright law as you were of the shortcomings of
E. A. Wallis Budge. If someone sends you a letter, the physical piece of
paper belongs to you, and you may keep it or sell it or destroy it as
you will, but the message on it remains the intellectual property of the
writer and his/her heirs and assigns in perpetuity. A number of
biographies have been less than full portraits of their subjects because
the writer was not given permission to quote private letters and other
unpublished documents.
Saida
Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> You're as ignorant of copyright law as you were of the shortcomings of
> E. A. Wallis Budge. If someone sends you a letter, the physical piece of
> paper belongs to you, and you may keep it or sell it or destroy it as
> you will, but the message on it remains the intellectual property of the
> writer and his/her heirs and assigns in perpetuity. A number of
> biographies have been less than full portraits of their subjects because
> the writer was not given permission to quote private letters and other
> unpublished documents.
You seem to be a little short on logic, Mister. What you wrote above
doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
Annan
I don't knoe if the copyright law can be used in this case but I think it's
rude to post a private email on the net, and Peter T. Daniels arguments
sounds logical to me
Saida wrote in message <3503F6...@PioneerPlanet.infi.net>...
Peter T. Daniels
Saida wrote:
>
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> > You're as ignorant of copyright law as you were of the shortcomings of
> > E. A. Wallis Budge. If someone sends you a letter, the physical piece of
> > paper belongs to you, and you may keep it or sell it or destroy it as
> > you will, but the message on it remains the intellectual property of the
> > writer and his/her heirs and assigns in perpetuity. A number of
> > biographies have been less than full portraits of their subjects because
> > the writer was not given permission to quote private letters and other
> > unpublished documents.
>
> You seem to be a little short on logic, Mister. What you wrote above
> doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
I suppose if you'd bothered to show up for the hearing in the case, the
judge could have explained the law to you even more clearly than I did
above.
Which part don't you understand?
Let's divide it into paragraphs to make it even clearer.
A letter consists of two things: the physical object, and the
intellectual content of the writing written on the object.
The physical object belongs to the recipient.
The intellectual content belongs to the writer.
Xina
So help me, this is ENOUGH! You leave me out of this, and try to
remember that there are people out there that despite your BEST EFFORTS
to prove yourself unworthy, happen to CARE about both of you! But
hey....go ahead and prove you are completely without scruples or honor
by posting what was intended to be PRIVATE Email! Im only replying
because my name came up on this one, geez....you cannot win for trying
to be supportive of anyone can you!?
Im just astounded....and very disappointed.
Xina
Nubkhas
>
>This message is to announce the final decision of January 14, 1998, of
>the
>
>Tenth Judicial Circuit
>of Alabama, Civil Division
>
>in the matter of
>
>Katherine Griffis, Plaintiff
>
>vs.
>
>Marianne Luban, Defendant
>
>Case No. CV 97-5873
Since Katherine Griffis has now tried to post this garbage on private mailing
lists as well as the newsgroups, I am going to make one final statement about
this "judgment". It is a "Default Judgment", meaning I refused to invest my
time and money by appearing in court or participate in any way in what is
clearly a frivolous and malicious misuse of our judicial system. Katherine
Griffis has proved no libel on my part whatsoever. All she has proved is that
one can manipulate the system if one wants to.
Moreover, as I am not a resident of the State of Alabama, in which the judgment
was entered, a civil court in that state has NO jurisdiction over me and cannot
hold me in contempt if I disobey the "injunction". Since I own no property in
Alabama, no monetary award can be upheld. It would have to be inforced in the
state where I live, something Katherine Griffis would find much more difficult
to do than obtain the worthless document she now possesses.
Although I have been victimized by Ms. Griffis' legal nonsense, she does not
really care about me or think she can get anything from me. The ones she
really wants to victimize is you, the people of these newsgroups. I have told
nothing but the truth about her and have questioned her on many issues--and now
this is the only way she can save face and get you to believe that I have
somehow falsely accused her. This has NEVER happened--and never will.
Marianne Luban
Stephen Heneghan
Saida <sa...@PioneerPlanet.infi.net> wrote:
>Akan Ifriqiya wrote:
>>
>> In article <35021B...@PioneerPlanet.infi.net>,
>> sa...@PioneerPlanet.infi.net says...
>> >Here is a letter I received from a personal friend of Ms. Griffis
>> >admitting that she was subscribed to my mailing list under an alias
>> >(spying on me) and that she exaggerates her credentials just as I have
>> >always said she does. I have NEVER said anything about Katherine
>> >Griffis that is not absolutely the truth. I don't like to show my
>> >private mail, but Griffis has asked for this in spades. Why don't you
>> >sue HIM, bitch?
>> >
>>
>> This exchange between you and Katherine really is without public interest.
>> But now I understand, you are not a muslim. Perhaps you might take care to
>> learn some politeness if you are going to go by muslim name like Saida and
>> use foul language in public? It really is very unbecoming.
>>
>> Ramira Naka
>Why don't you mind your own business, Ali Baba? I never claimed to be a
>Muslim. And there are plenty of people who have had "Arabic" names who
>weren't Muslims--like Copts and Jews. Another thing--why do you have a
>forged email address?
I didn't realise Saida was a Muslim name. The only time I've come
across the word is in Portugal, wher it means 'exit'.
--
Stephen Heneghan
Swansea, Reino Unido.
My newserver is not very good, so please e-mail me if you want a reply.
Avi.Ja...@pbdir.com
In article <3502C7...@PioneerPlanet.infi.net>,
> > The writer of the letter would be well within his legal rights to sue
> > for breach of copyright, especially as the quoted material expressly
> > requests that it not be made public.
> > --
> > Peter T. Daniels gram...@worldnet.att.net
> You are wrong.
No, Saida. Peter is right and you are wrong.
I am not a lawyer, but I have done some research on this issue and have an
important and authoritative reference in my Bookmarks:
Brad Templeton, publisher at ClariNet Communications Corp. (the net's first
and largest electronic newspaper with a readership of a million and a half
paid subscribers), has published a detailed article explaining the issue of
copyright vis-à-vis Internet/Usenet reproduction. The article bears the
following waiver -- "Permission is granted to freely copy (unmodified) this
document (or rather its most up to date version from
http:www.clari.net/brad/copymyths.html) in electronic form, or in print if
you're not selling it." - so I am reproducing it below.
I have posted in plain text rather than HTML, so none of the copious links in
the original text have been preserved. I suggest that those interest access
the original: http://www.clari.net/brad/copymyths.html.
Happy reading.
----------------START-----------------
10 Big Myths about copyright explained
An attempt to answer common myths about copyright seen on the net and cover
issues related to copyright and USENET/Internet publication.
- by Brad Templeton
Note that this is an essay about copyright myths. It assumes you know at
least what copyright is -- basically the legal exclusive right of the author
of a creative work to control the copying of that work. If you didn't know
that, check out my own brief introduction to copyright for more information.
1) "If it doesn't have a copyright notice, it's not copyrighted."
This was true in the past, but today almost all major nations follow the
Berne copyright convention. For example, in the USA, almost everything
created privately and originally after April 1, 1989 is copyrighted and
protected whether it has a notice or not. The default you should assume for
other people's works is that they are copyrighted and may not be copied
unless you know otherwise. There are some old works that lost protection
without notice, but frankly you should not risk it unless you know for sure.
It is true that a notice strengthens the protection, by warning people, and
by allowing one to get more and different damages, but it is not necessary.
If it looks copyrighted, you should assume it is. This applies to pictures,
too. You may not scan pictures from magazines and post them to the net, and
if you come upon something unknown, you shouldn't post that either.
The correct form for a notice is:
"Copyright [dates] by [author/owner]"
You can use C in a circle © instead of "Copyright" but "(C)" has never been
given legal force. The phrase "All Rights Reserved" used to be required in
some nations but is now not needed.
2) "If I don't charge for it, it's not a violation."
False. Whether you charge can affect the damages awarded in court, but that's
essentially the only difference. It's still a violation if you give it away
-- and there can still be heavy damages if you hurt the commercial value of
the property.
3) "If it's posted to Usenet it's in the public domain."
False. Nothing modern is in the public domain anymore unless the owner
explicitly puts it in the public domain(*). Explicitly, as in you have a note
from the author/owner saying, "I grant this to the public domain." Those
exact words or words very much like them.
Some argue that posting to Usenet implicitly grants permission to everybody
to copy the posting within fairly wide bounds, and others feel that Usenet is
an automatic store and forward network where all the thousands of copies made
are done at the command (rather than the consent) of the poster. This is a
matter of some debate, but even if the former is true (and in this writer's
opinion we should all pray it isn't true) it simply would suggest posters are
implicitly granting permissions "for the sort of copying one might expect
when one posts to Usenet" and in no case is this a placement of material into
the public domain. It is important to remember that when it comes to the law,
computers never make copies, only human beings make copies. Computers are
given commands, not permission. Only people can be given permission.
Furthermore it is very difficult for an implicit licence to supersede an
explicitly stated licence that the copier was aware of.
Note that all this assumes the poster had the right to post the item in the
first place. If the poster didn't, then all the copies are pirate, and no
implied licence or theoretical reduction of the copyright can take place.
(*) Copyrights can expire after a long time, putting something into the
public domain, and there are some fine points on this issue regarding older
copyright law versions. However, none of this applies to an original article
posted to USENET.
Note that granting something to the public domain is a complete abandonment
of all rights. You can't make something "PD for non-commercial use." If your
work is PD, other people can even modify one byte and put their name on it.
4) "My posting was just fair use!"
See other notes on fair use for a detailed answer, but bear the following in
mind:
The "fair use" exemption to copyright law was created to allow things such as
commentary, parody, news reporting, research and education about copyrighted
works without the permission of the author. Intent, and damage to the
commercial value of the work are important considerations. Are you
reproducing an article from the New York Times because you needed to in order
to criticise the quality of the New York Times, or because you couldn't find
time to write your own story, or didn't want your readers to have to pay for
the New York Times web site? The first is probably fair use, the others
probably aren't.
Fair use is almost always a short excerpt and almost always attributed. (One
should not use more of the work than is necessary to make the commentary.) It
should not harm the commercial value of the work -- in the sense of people no
longer needing to buy it (which is another reason why reproduction of the
entire work is generally forbidden.)
Note that most inclusion of text in Usenet followups is for commentary and
reply, and it doesn't damage the commercial value of the original posting (if
it has any) and as such it is fair use. Fair use isn't an exact doctrine,
either. The court decides if the right to comment overrides the copyright on
an individual basis in each case. There have been cases that go beyond the
bounds of what I say above, but in general they don't apply to the typical
net misclaim of fair use. It's a risky defence to attempt.
Facts and ideas can't be copyrighted, but their expression and structure can.
You can always write the facts in your own words.
5) "If you don't defend your copyright you lose it." -- "Somebody has that
name copyrighted!"
False. Copyright is effectively never lost these days, unless explicitly
given away. You also can't "copyright a name" or anything short like that,
such as almost all titles. You may be thinking of trade marks, which apply to
names, and can be weakened or lost if not defended.
You generally trademark terms by using them to refer to your brand of a
generic type of product or service. Like an "Apple" computer. Apple Computer
"owns" that word applied to computers, even though it is also an ordinary
word. Apple Records owns it when applied to music. Neither owns the word on
its own, only in context, and owning a mark doesn't mean complete control --
see a more detailed treatise on this law for details.
You can't use somebody else's trademark in a way that would unfairly hurt the
value of the mark, or in a way that might make people confuse you with the
real owner of the mark, or which might allow you to profit from the mark's
good name. For example, if I were giving advice on music videos, I would be
very wary of trying to label my works with a name like "mtv." :-)
6) "If I make up my own stories, but base them on another work, my new work
belongs to me."
False. Copyright law is quite explicit that the making of what are called
"derivative works" -- works based or derived from another copyrighted work --
is the exclusive province of the owner of the original work. This is true
even though the making of these new works is a highly creative process. If
you write a story using settings or characters from somebody else's work, you
need that author's permission.
Yes, that means almost all "fan fiction" is a copyright violation. If you
want to write a story about Jim Kirk and Mr. Spock, you need Paramount's
permission, plain and simple. Now, as it turns out, many, but not all holders
of popular copyrights turn a blind eye to "fan fiction" or even subtly
encourage it because it helps them. Make no mistake, however, that it is
entirely up to them whether to do that.
There is one major exception -- parody. The fair use provision says that if
you want to make fun of something like Star Trek, you don't need their
permission to include Mr. Spock. This is not a loophole; you can't just take
a non-parody and claim it is one on a technicality. The way "fair use" works
is you get sued for copyright infringement, and you admit you did infringe,
but that your infringement was a fair use. A subjective judgement is then
made.
7) "They can't get me, defendants in court have powerful rights!"
Copyright law is mostly civil law. If you violate copyright you would usually
get sued, not charged with a crime. "Innocent until proven guilty" is a
principle of criminal law, as is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." Sorry,
but in copyright suits, these don't apply the same way or at all. It's mostly
which side and set of evidence the judge or jury accepts or believes more,
though the rules vary based on the type of infringement. In civil cases you
can even be made to testify against your own interests.
8) "Oh, so copyright violation isn't a crime or anything?"
Actually, recently in the USA commercial copyright violation involving more
than 10 copies and value over $2500 was made a felony. So watch out. (At
least you get the protections of criminal law.) On the other hand, don't
think you're going to get people thrown in jail for posting your E-mail. The
courts have much better things to do than that. This is a fairly new,
untested statute.
9) "It doesn't hurt anybody -- in fact it's free advertising."
It's up to the owner to decide if they want the free ads or not. If they want
them, they will be sure to contact you. Don't rationalize whether it hurts
the owner or not, ask them. Usually that's not too hard to do. Time past,
ClariNet published the very funny Dave Barry column to a large and
appreciative Usenet audience for a fee, but some person didn't ask, and
forwarded it to a mailing list, got caught, and the newspaper chain that
employs Dave Barry pulled the column from the net, pissing off everybody who
enjoyed it. Even if you can't think of how the author or owner gets hurt,
think about the fact that piracy on the net hurts everybody who wants a
chance to use this wonderful new technology to do more than read other
people's flamewars.
10) "They e-mailed me a copy, so I can post it."
To have a copy is not to have the copyright. All the E-mail you write is
copyrighted. However, E-mail is not, unless previously agreed, secret. So you
can certainly report on what E-mail you are sent, and reveal what it says.
You can even quote parts of it to demonstrate. Frankly, somebody who sues
over an ordinary message would almost surely get no damages, because the
message has no commercial value, but if you want to stay strictly in the law,
you should ask first. On the other hand, don't go nuts if somebody posts
E-mail you sent them. If it was an ordinary non-secret personal letter of
minimal commercial value with no copyright notice (like 99.9% of all E-mail),
you probably won't get any damages if you sue them. Note as well that, the
law aside, keeping private correspondence private is a courtesy one should
usually honour.
11)"So I can't ever reproduce anything?"
Myth #11 (I didn't want to change the now-famous title of this article) is
actually one sometimes generated in response to this list of 10 myths. No,
copyright isn't an iron-clad lock on what can be published. Indeed by many
arguments, by providing reward to authors, it encourages them to not just
allow, but fund the publication and distribution of works so that they reach
far more people than they would if they were free or unprotected -- and
unpromoted. However, it must be remembered that copyright has two main
purposes, namely the protection of the author's right to obtain commercial
benefit from valuable work, and more recently the protection of the author's
general right to control how a work is used.
While copyright law makes it technically illegal to reproduce almost any new
creative work (other than under fair use) without permission, if the work is
unregistered and has no real commercial value, it gets very little
protection. The author in this case can sue for an injunction against the
publication, actual damages from a violation, and possibly court costs.
Actual damages means actual money potentially lost by the author due to
publication, plus any money gained by the defendant. But if a work has no
commercial value, such as a typical E-mail message or conversational USENET
posting, the actual damages will be zero. Only the most vindictive (and rich)
author would sue when no damages are possible, and the courts don't look
kindly on vindictive plaintiffs, unless the defendants are even more
vindictive.
The author's right to control what is done with a work, however, has some
validity, even if it has no commercial value. If you feel you need to violate
a copyright "because you can get away with it because the work has no value"
you should ask yourself why you're doing it. In general respecting the rights
of creators to control their creations is a principle many advocate adhering
to.
In addition, while more often than not people claim a "fair use" copying
incorrectly, fair use is a valid concept necessary to allow the criticism of
copyrighted works and their creators through examples. But please read more
about it before you do it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Summary
oThese days, almost all things are copyrighted the moment they are written,
and no copyright notice is required. oCopyright is still violated whether you
charged money or not, only damages are affected by that. oPostings to the net
are not granted to the public domain, and don't grant you any permission to
do further copying except perhaps the sort of copying the poster might have
expected in the ordinary flow of the net. oFair use is a complex doctrine
meant to allow certain valuable social purposes. Ask yourself why you are
republishing what you are posting and why you couldn't have just rewritten it
in your own words. oCopyright is not lost because you don't defend it; that's
a concept from trademark law. The ownership of names is also from trademark
law, so don't say somebody has a name copyrighted. oFan fiction and other
work derived from copyrighted works is a copyright violation. oCopyright law
is mostly civil law where the special rights of criminal defendants you hear
so much about don't apply. Watch out, however, as new laws are moving
copyright violation into the criminal realm. oDon't rationalize that you are
helping the copyright holder; often it's not that hard to ask permission.
oPosting E-mail is technically a violation, but revealing facts from E-mail
you got isn't, and for almost all typical E-mail, nobody could wring any
damages from you for posting it. The law doesn't do much to protect works
with no commercial value.
Might it be a violation just to link to a web page? That's not a myth, it's
undecided, but I have written some discussion of linking rights issues.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Permission is granted to freely copy (unmodified) this document (or rather
its most up to date version from http:www.clari.net/brad/copymyths.html) in
electronic form, or in print if you're not selling it. On the WWW, however,
you must link here rather than put up your own page. If you had not seen a
notice like this on the document, you would have to assume you did not have
permission to copy it. This document is still protected by you-know-what even
though it has no copyright notice.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
It should be noted that the author, as publisher of an electronic newspaper
on the net, makes his living by publishing copyrighted material in electronic
form and has the associated biases. However, DO NOT E-MAIL HIM FOR LEGAL
ADVICE; for that use other resources or consult a lawyer. By the way, did I
mention: do not e-mail me for legal advice? Also note that while most of
these principles are universal in Berne copyright signatory nations, some are
derived from Canadian and U.S. law. This document is provided to clear up
some common misconceptions about intellectual property law that are often
seen on the net. It is not intended to be a complete treatise on all the
nuances of the subject. A more detailed copyright FAQ, covering other issues
including compilation copyright and more intricacies of fair use is available
in the same places you found this note. Also consider the U.S. Library of
Congress copyright site. Australians try this. This site has Canadian
Copyright Info. Another useful document is the EFF's IP law primer. I should
also mention sorry, but please do not e-mail me your copyright questions.
------- END -------
> There is no such thing as "private" email
Correct -- unless previously agreed.
> and very
> little in cyberspace is "secure".
Very little inside an open, parked, convertible is "secure". But it's still
a crime to steal it.
[snip]
> If you write me a letter by snail mail, whose property does it become
> once I receive it? Mine, of course.
Respectfully, Saida should be a little more careful with "of course". In
fact, according to Templeton, the letter (the sheets with the words on them)
are your property, but the copyright (the right to reproduce, distribute,
etc.) remains with the author.
> I can do whatever I like with it
Clearly wrong.
> and, if you are so stupid as to write me a letter that might get you in
> trouble with, say, your wife, that is your problem. Can you sue me for
> showing your wife a signed note from you saying I am the love of your
> life?
Yes.
> Telling somebody to keep something private does not obligate them
> to do so.
No, but AGREEING with them that it will be kept private is as binding as any
other agreement or contract. And a verbal agreement -- though more difficult
to prove in court -- is as binding as a written one.
> An email message is not subject to copyright laws.
Wrong.
--
Avi Jacobson, email: Avi.Ja...@pbdir.com | When an idea is
or: Av...@amdocs.com | wanting, a word
| can always be found
Opinions are those of the poster, =NOT= of | to take its place.
Amdocs, Inc. or Pacific Bell Directory. | -- Goethe
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Harlan Messinger
: (snip)
:> > always said she does. I have NEVER said anything about Katherine
:> > Griffis that is not absolutely the truth. I don't like to show my
:> > private mail, but Griffis has asked for this in spades. Why don't you
:> > sue HIM, bitch?
:>
:> The writer of the letter would be well within his legal rights to sue
:> for breach of copyright, especially as the quoted material expressly
:> requests that it not be made public.
:> --
:> Peter T. Daniels gram...@worldnet.att.net
: You are wrong. There is no such thing as "private" email and very
: little in cyberspace is "secure". Normally, I do keep my personal
: correspondence private, but this individual is a two-faced weasel who
: played both ends against the middle and deserves no consideration. Let
: him sue me. He can have what's left after Griffis collects her share
: :-)
: If you write me a letter by snail mail, whose property does it become
: once I receive it? Mine, of course. I can do whatever I like with it
When you buy a book, the book is yours. Do you think that means you can
then make a thousand copies of the book and distribute them, or scan the
contents into your computer and make a public web page out of them? What
you own is the book. You do not own the rights to the material contained
IN the book.
: and, if you are so stupid as to write me a letter that might get you in
: trouble with, say, your wife, that is your problem. Can you sue me for
: showing your wife a signed note from you saying I am the love of your
: life?
Yes, you can show her the letter. What you may not do (without permission)
is copy the letter and distribute the copies, or publish the contents of
the letter on the web or through other electronic means.
Walter Jones
Is this really pertinent to archaelogy?
Stephen Heneghan wrote:
> Saida <sa...@PioneerPlanet.infi.net> wrote:
>
> >Akan Ifriqiya wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <35021B...@PioneerPlanet.infi.net>,
> >> sa...@PioneerPlanet.infi.net says...
> >> >Here is a letter I received from a personal friend of Ms. Griffis
> >> >admitting that she was subscribed to my mailing list under an alias
> >> >(spying on me) and that she exaggerates her credentials just as I have
> >> >always said she does. I have NEVER said anything about Katherine
> >> >Griffis that is not absolutely the truth. I don't like to show my
> >> >private mail, but Griffis has asked for this in spades. Why don't you
> >> >sue HIM, bitch?
> >> >
> >>
Walter Jones
Harlan Messinger wrote:
> When you buy a book, the book is yours. Do you think that means you can
> then make a thousand copies of the book and distribute them, or scan the
> contents into your computer and make a public web page out of them? What
> you own is the book. You do not own the rights to the material contained
> IN the book.
>
> : and, if you are so stupid as to write me a letter that might get you in
> : trouble with, say, your wife, that is your problem. Can you sue me for
> : showing your wife a signed note from you saying I am the love of your
> : life?
>
> Yes, you can show her the letter.
> What you may not do (without permission)
Where is your precident? Copyright only applies to copywrit materials. Personal letters
are not protected. Your definition would have us believing that one can ultimately only
legally veiw personal email on ones own computer, not on a remote computer. Possibly,
you would veiw using a friends computer to look at on-line class assignments as a
copyright violation because the agreement was entered on one's own personal computer.
You've taken more than a 100 years of good law and made crap out of them. Crap because
your definition is indefensible. Common law has always held that one may dispose of ones
personal property as one wishes. That is why Copyright law recognizes fair use in
copying and using portions of copywrit materials. Your argument is valid for licensed
materials, but not for unlicensed materials or uncopywrit materials. Besides, who gives
a flying Clinton as long as the arrangements are consentual and it is part of one's
personal life. Let's get on with the business of making the country work, and not be
bothered by distractions, such as possible crimes.
>
> is copy the letter and distribute the copies, or publish the contents of
> the letter on the web or through other electronic means.
Really, can I resell the book it I want to, do does the money for selling the book go
to the author. If I forward email, am I breaking the law?
Regardless, WHAT THE HELL DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH ARCHAEOLOGY?
Annan
This discussion is getting a bit boring ...so why not just drop it!!
Peter T. Daniels
Walter Jones wrote:
>
> Harlan Messinger wrote:
>
> > When you buy a book, the book is yours. Do you think that means you can
> > then make a thousand copies of the book and distribute them, or scan the
> > contents into your computer and make a public web page out of them? What
> > you own is the book. You do not own the rights to the material contained
> > IN the book.
> >
> > : and, if you are so stupid as to write me a letter that might get you in
> > : trouble with, say, your wife, that is your problem. Can you sue me for
> > : showing your wife a signed note from you saying I am the love of your
> > : life?
> >
> > Yes, you can show her the letter.
>
> > What you may not do (without permission)
>
> Where is your precident? Copyright only applies to copywrit materials. Personal letters
> are not protected.
This is simply incorrect. Until about 20 years ago, in some countries it
was necessary for the magic notice to appear on a document for the
rights of the creator of intellectual property to be recognized. But no
such requirement exists at present, and in much of the world it never
did.
And the words are "precedent" and "copyrighted."
> You've taken more than a 100 years of good law and made crap out of them. Crap because
> your definition is indefensible. Common law has always held that one may dispose of ones
> personal property as one wishes. That is why Copyright law recognizes fair use in
> copying and using portions of copywrit materials. Your argument is valid for licensed
> materials, but not for unlicensed materials or uncopywrit materials.
Argument from ignorance is not persuasive.
>
> Regardless, WHAT THE HELL DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH ARCHAEOLOGY?
Why don't you look at the beginning of the thread? If you follow the
thread, moreover, you'll find a concise and accurate exposition of the
current state of copyright law.
And what does much of what appears on sci.archaeology have to do with
archeology?
Harlan Messinger
Walter Jones <walt...@ce.net> wrote:
>
>Harlan Messinger wrote:
>>
>> Yes, you can show her the letter.
>
>> What you may not do (without permission)
>
>Where is your precident?
Copyright law is statutory, not case law. Precedent has nothing to do
with it.
>Copyright only applies to copywrit materials. Personal letters
>are not protected.
You are welcome to look it up. Be sure to look at a discussion of the
current law--US copyright law was massively revised a few years back.
>Your definition would have us believing that one can ultimately only
>legally veiw personal email on ones own computer, not on a remote computer.
No, because that would be "fair use", just like you can, for your own
use, copy pages out of a book that you own for your own convenience in
carrying a few around at a time, or for marking up without sullying
the book itself.
>Possibly,
>you would veiw using a friends computer to look at on-line class assignments as a
>copyright violation because the agreement was entered on one's own personal computer.
>
>You've taken more than a 100 years of good law and made crap out of them.
I haven't done any such thing. All I did was explain what the current
law says.
>Crap because
>your definition is indefensible. Common law has always held that one may dispose of ones
>personal property as one wishes.
That is irrelevant because somebody else's writing is not your
personal property. Also, copyright law, being statutory, overrides
common law.
>That is why Copyright law recognizes fair use in
>copying and using portions of copywrit materials. Your argument is valid for licensed
>materials,
You are confusing the relationship between copyrighting (not
copywriting, which is a real but different word) and licensing.
Someone needs your permission to use your copyrighted works in ways
that don't fall within fair use. A licensing arrangement is a way to
extend this permission. Being licensed does not precede being
copyrighted.
Doug Weller
On Thu, 12 Mar 1998 21:47:05 -0500, in sci.archaeology, Walter Jones wrote:
>
>Where is your precident? Copyright only applies to copywrit materials. Personal letters
>are not protected. Your definition would have us believing that one can ultimately only
>legally veiw personal email on ones own computer, not on a remote computer. Possibly,
>you would veiw using a friends computer to look at on-line class assignments as a
>copyright violation because the agreement was entered on one's own personal computer.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'copywrit materials', but you have copyright in
anything you write, personal letters included.
Brad Templeton of Clarinet is an expert on this -- he has to be, as people keep
trying to repost Clarinet stuff!
He writes:
10) "They e-mailed me a copy, so I can post it."
To have a copy is not to have the copyright. All the E-mail you write is
copyrighted. However, E-mail is not, unless previously agreed, secret. So you
can certainly report on what E-mail you are sent, and reveal what it says.
You can even quote parts of it to demonstrate. Frankly, somebody who sues
over an ordinary message would almost surely get no damages, because the
message has no commercial value, but if you want to stay strictly in the law,
you should ask first. On the other hand, don't go nuts if somebody posts
E-mail you sent them. If it was an ordinary non-secret personal letter of
minimal commercial value with no copyright notice (like 99.9% of all E-mail),
you probably won't get any damages if you sue them. Note as well that, the
law aside, keeping private correspondence private is a courtesy one should
usually honour.
>You've taken more than a 100 years of good law and made crap out of them. Crap because
>your definition is indefensible. Common law has always held that one may dispose of ones
>personal property as one wishes. That is why Copyright law recognizes fair use in
>copying and using portions of copywrit materials.
The law changed in 1989. I'm afraid you are out of date and simply wrong. As
for fair use, Brad writes:
4) "My posting was just fair use!"
See other notes on fair use for a detailed answer, but bear the following in
mind:
The "fair use" exemption to copyright law was created to allow things such as
commentary, parody, news reporting, research and education about copyrighted
works without the permission of the author. Intent, and damage to the
commercial value of the work are important considerations. Are you
reproducing an article from the New York Times because you needed to in order
to criticise the quality of the New York Times, or because you couldn't find
time to write your own story, or didn't want your readers to have to pay for
the New York Times web site? The first is probably fair use, the others
probably aren't.
Fair use is almost always a short excerpt and almost always attributed.
> Your argument is valid for licensed
>materials, but not for unlicensed materials or uncopywrit materials. Besides, who gives
>a flying Clinton as long as the arrangements are consentual and it is part of one's
>personal life. Let's get on with the business of making the country work, and not be
>bothered by distractions, such as possible crimes.
Of course in the case of the letter Marianne quoted, she was specifically asked
not to make it public.
I'm not sure of what you mean 'making the country work'. Usenet is
international.
[SNIP]
>
> Really, can I resell the book it I want to, do does the money for selling the book go
>to the author. If I forward email, am I breaking the law?
When you buy a book, you buy the right to resell the physical book. But not to
republish the words under your name, for instance. If you forward email, you
are breaking copyright. You are also breaking one of the few Usenet taboos.
And, if you forward email you've been asked to keep secret, you are acting
unethically. (And Marianne's 'two wrongs make a right' argument isn't
convincing).
>Regardless, WHAT THE HELL DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH ARCHAEOLOGY?
One could equallyy ask why you posted this to sci.lang. It has to do with
Usenet, and the posting from Brad Templeton also pointed out that people
shouldn't be resposting whole articles from Newspaper web sites, etc.
The URL for the copyright myths faq is: http://www.clari.net/brad/copymyths.html
Doug
sherman
> This discussion is getting a bit boring ...so why not just drop it!!