Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Announcement of Final Judgment on Internet Libel

4 views
Skip to first unread message

Legal/Griffis Consulting

unread,
Mar 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/4/98
to

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

Adze

unread,
Mar 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/4/98
to

Is anyone else suprised that the obscene lawyers have finally crawled out of
their putrid holes and joined us.

Doug Weller

unread,
Mar 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/5/98
to

On 4 Mar 1998 23:20:12 GMT, in sci.archaeology, Adze wrote:

>Is anyone else suprised that the obscene lawyers have finally crawled out of
>their putrid holes and joined us

This has happened before. Do you really think that no one should have legal
protection on the Internet, that, in principle (ignoring the specifics in this
case) people should be defenseless against an attempt to ruin their reputation,
career, etc?

Doug

Adze

unread,
Mar 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/5/98
to

>Subject: Re: Announcement of Final Judgment on Internet >Libel
>From: dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk (Doug Weller)

>This has happened before. Do you really think that no one >should have legal
>protection on the Internet, that, in principle (ignoring the >specifics in
this
>case) people should be defenseless against an attempt to >ruin their
reputation,
>career, etc?

Yep, I wish I had one(lawyer) for a pet so I could lead it around to fight my
fights, speak my thoughts and ward off any silly schoolyard disagreements.


Alan M Dunsmuir

unread,
Mar 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/5/98
to

In article <35244d65....@news.demon.co.uk>, Doug Weller
<dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk> writes

>This has happened before. Do you really think that no one should have legal
>protection on the Internet, that, in principle (ignoring the specifics in this
>case) people should be defenseless against an attempt to ruin their reputation,
>career, etc?

One can only hope that it writes 'finis' to Saida's habitual vomitings
of vile and obscene vituperation. I personally hope that the judgement
took her for every penny she possesses.
--
Alan M Dunsmuir

Robin R Langton

unread,
Mar 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/6/98
to

On 5 Mar 1998 12:24:52 GMT, ad...@aol.com (Adze) wrote:

>
>>Subject: Re: Announcement of Final Judgment on Internet >Libel
>>From: dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk (Doug Weller)
>

>>This has happened before. Do you really think that no one >should have legal
>>protection on the Internet, that, in principle (ignoring the >specifics in
>this
>>case) people should be defenseless against an attempt to >ruin their
>reputation,
>>career, etc?
>

>Yep, I wish I had one(lawyer) for a pet so I could lead it around to fight my
>fights, speak my thoughts and ward off any silly schoolyard disagreements.
>

They make awful pets - too bloody expensive to feed! :-)

Robbie Langton For Sci-Fi Cult TV Satire see:
http://www.roblang.demon.co.uk/fangrok/index.html

Saida

unread,
Mar 7, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/7/98
to

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

unread,
Mar 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/8/98
to

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

unread,
Mar 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/8/98
to

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

unread,
Mar 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/8/98
to

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?

Saida

unread,
Mar 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/8/98
to

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

unread,
Mar 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/8/98
to

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

Nubkhas

unread,
Mar 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/8/98
to

>>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?

Weller:


>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.

THIS is your idea of a racist attack? You must live a pretty sheltered life. I
don't consider this guy's post "constructive" at all. They are worth about as
much as your own,which have the value of the Russian rouble at my grocery
store. If you ask me, he acts like a male-chauvanist jerk. I am sick and
tired of "Ramira" calling me "ukhti" (my sister) and telling me how to behave
like he was the Aytollah Khoumeini telling me I'd better go put on my veil and
act like his idea of a proper muslim woman. Since I never called him "ukhi"
(my brother) or claimed to be anything but an American who values freedom of
speech, who is he to try to make me conform to his third-world ways?

Saida:


>> 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?

Weller:


>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)

That's the first time I have ever seen you admit that something was none of
your business and also this is the first time you have ever made a statement
that was correct. I am under no obligation to use my real name in a newsgroup.
Nor am I under any obligation to always appear under the same netname.
Besides which, if "Ramira" has a forged email address, how can you be sure he
uses his real name? Do you know him personally? No, I thought not. And how
can we be sure your name is actually "Doug Weller"?

Doug Weller

unread,
Mar 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/8/98
to

On 8 Mar 1998 18:31:40 GMT, in sci.archaeology, Nubkhas wrote:

Well, Marianne aka Saida wrote:

>>>
>>>Why don't you mind your own business, Ali Baba?
>
>Weller:
>>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.
>
>THIS is your idea of a racist attack? You must live a pretty sheltered life.

I've seen worse, but it's racist. Full stop.

[SNIP]

>
>Weller:
>>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)
>
>That's the first time I have ever seen you admit that something was none of
>your business and also this is the first time you have ever made a statement
>that was correct.

I see. So the Egyptians didn't build the pyramids? Ah well.

> I am under no obligation to use my real name in a newsgroup.
> Nor am I under any obligation to always appear under the same netname.

Nope. I do find it interesting when people use different names.

>Besides which, if "Ramira" has a forged email address, how can you be sure he
>uses his real name? Do you know him personally? No, I thought not. And how
>can we be sure your name is actually "Doug Weller"?

Well, you could check on the web, I think my name and address are there. I run a
mailing list on the official higher education mailing list server, unlikely
they'd let me use a fake name. I have no reason to keep my name a secret,
unlike some.

Doug

Doug Weller

unread,
Mar 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/8/98
to

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

unread,
Mar 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/8/98
to

Saida wrote:
>
> 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.

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.

Nubkhas

unread,
Mar 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/9/98
to

>>>>
>>>>Why don't you mind your own business, Ali Baba?

>>Weller:
>>>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.

>>THIS is your idea of a racist attack? You must live a pretty sheltered life.
>
>
>I've seen worse, but it's racist. Full stop.

You're sure about this, then, are you? Since you brought the concept of "race"
into this, Weller, what "race" would you say Ali Baba was? I wouldn't have the
least idea. All I know is he is a character in a folk-tale who was a male
chauvanist porker to a gal named Morgana. Probably he always called her
"ukhti" like Ramira does me. Ali Baba, however, is not exactly a villain like
yourself--just a poor woodcutter who wants to better his lot in life--although
he insists that women should be seen and not heard. Now what were you saying
about "race"?

Nubkhas

unread,
Mar 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/9/98
to

>>> 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.
>
>Hey Saida,
>
>Sorry to interrupt, but an e-mail message IS subject to copyright
>laws.
>
>There is an exellent FAQ on copyrights:
>This FAQ can be found at http://www.clari.net/brad/copymyths.html
>
>Next time engage brain before putting fingers into gear.

Speaking of brain problems, do you have dislexia that you can't read with
comprehension. Here is what it says on the FAQ--and I do humbly beg the pardon
of the author for quoting him:

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. "

Unless the person who wrote the correspondence is not too big on courtesy or
honour, himself. I wouldn't be too protective of such a person. You don't
know what dirt he's done me, so don't judge without the facts.

Doug Weller

unread,
Mar 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/9/98
to

On 9 Mar 1998 02:55:28 GMT, in sci.archaeology, Nubkhas wrote:

>>>>>
>>>>>Why don't you mind your own business, Ali Baba?

I wrote

>>
>>I've seen worse, but it's racist. Full stop.
>
>You're sure about this, then, are you? Since you brought the concept of "race"
>into this, Weller, what "race" would you say Ali Baba was?

I see. You're claiming calling someone 'Ali Baba' isn't racist. Either you're
being disengenuous, or you're the one living a sheltered life.

It hardly matters what race any original 'Ali Baba' was, the use of the term is
racist. And you think I'm a villain!

Doug

Akan Ifriqiya

unread,
Mar 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/9/98
to

In article <19980309025...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, nub...@aol.com
says...

>
>>>>>
>>>>>Why don't you mind your own business, Ali Baba?
>
>>>Weller:
>>>>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.
>
>>>THIS is your idea of a racist attack? You must live a pretty sheltered
life.
>>
>>
>>I've seen worse, but it's racist. Full stop.
>
>You're sure about this, then, are you? Since you brought the concept of
"race"
>into this, Weller, what "race" would you say Ali Baba was? I wouldn't have
the
>least idea. All I know is he is a character in a folk-tale who was a male
>chauvanist porker to a gal named Morgana. Probably he always called her
>"ukhti" like Ramira does me. Ali Baba, however, is not exactly a villain
like
>yourself--just a poor woodcutter who wants to better his lot in
life--although
>he insists that women should be seen and not heard. Now what were you
saying
>about "race"?
>

In other words you applied Ali Baba as a stereotyped arabo-muslim
charicature. That is racist.

Ramira Naka


Saida

unread,
Mar 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/9/98
to

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.

Nubkhas

unread,
Mar 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/9/98
to

>In other words you applied Ali Baba as a stereotyped arabo-muslim
>charicature. That is racist.
>
>Ramira Naka

In order for that to apply to you, you would have to admit that
you are, indeed, an "arabo-muslim charicature"--which you certainly come off as
being with your constant spouting of
"ukhti", chastisement of my demeanor as a woman bearing
a "muslim" name and telling me to go read the Quran (presumably
to seek counsel in "knowing my place"). I don't see you
going around this newsgroup policing the behavior of any
of the males here or commenting upon it--only mine. You are,
therefore, reacting to me in a stereotypical "arabo-muslim charicature" fashion
as enlightened men with modern ideas don't
expect females to behave any differently from males under like
circumstances. As for "race"--if there is such a thing--I am probably of the
same "race" as yourself, so the final conclusion is
that you are just another belligerent misogynist in this group
spouting off without knowing what he's talking about.

Annan

unread,
Mar 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/9/98
to

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

unread,
Mar 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/9/98
to

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

unread,
Mar 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/9/98
to

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

Xcott Craver

unread,
Mar 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/9/98
to

Nubkhas <nub...@aol.com> wrote:
| Bill Proffitt wrote:


|> Saida wrote:
|> >
|> > An email message is not subject to copyright laws.
|>

|>Sorry to interrupt, but an e-mail message IS subject to copyright
|>laws.
|

|Speaking of brain problems, do you have dislexia that you can't read with
|comprehension. Here is what it says on the FAQ--and I do humbly beg the
|pardon of the author for quoting him:

>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. .... "

Okaaaaaaay.... So how is Bill wrong when he says (just as
you quoted in the FAQ) that E-mail is subject to copyright laws?

It's a rare breed of dumbass who backs up a claim by quoting a
credible source stating precisely the opposite. Have you ever
met PHAROAH STEVE?
-Xcott

Nubkhas

unread,
Mar 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/9/98
to

>
>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

Nubkhas

unread,
Mar 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/10/98
to

>
>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

Did someone post your private email? No. Did anyone implicate you? Again no.
So why shout to the world that you are somehow involved in all this? Listen
to me, Xina. What you should be reflecting on is the harm you did last year by
supporting Katherine Griffis by persecuting me "for her" while she smugly sat
back and rested on her" dignity". If you had kept silent then as you ought to
do now, maybe things wouldn't have gone this far. If you think I am
"completely without scruples or honor", I may prove you right. The person you
say I "dishonored", lied to me and I can prove it. I have no respect for him
whatsoever. Just remember, I save everything. So back off and don't start up
with me again.

Doug Weller

unread,
Mar 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/10/98
to

On 10 Mar 1998 00:19:26 GMT, in sci.archaeology, Nubkhas wrote:

>
>Did someone post your private email? No. Did anyone implicate you? Again no.
> So why shout to the world that you are somehow involved in all this? Listen
>to me, Xina. What you should be reflecting on is the harm you did last year by
>supporting Katherine Griffis by persecuting me "for her" while she smugly sat
>back and rested on her" dignity".

Are you including Xina in your lawsuit? You did say you were going to sue other
people besides Kathereine.

Doug

Alan M Dunsmuir

unread,
Mar 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/10/98
to

In article <19980310001...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, Nubkhas
<nub...@aol.com> writes

>Did someone post your private email? No. Did anyone implicate you? Again no.
> So why shout to the world that you are somehow involved in all this? Listen
>to me, Xina. What you should be reflecting on is the harm you did last year by
>supporting Katherine Griffis by persecuting me "for her" while she smugly sat
>back and rested on her" dignity". If you had kept silent then as you ought to
>do now, maybe things wouldn't have gone this far. If you think I am
>"completely without scruples or honor", I may prove you right. The person you
>say I "dishonored", lied to me and I can prove it. I have no respect for him
>whatsoever. Just remember, I save everything. So back off and don't start up
>with me again.

Listen, blubberguts.

A year ago you posted here. "I'm through with this NewsGroup. Fuck you
all. I'm out of here."

Why can't you simply keep your word for once?
--
Alan M Dunsmuir

Loren Petrich

unread,
Mar 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/10/98
to

Marianne Luban, you are *incredibly* itchy!

--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
pet...@netcom.com And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html

Akan Ifriqiya

unread,
Mar 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/10/98
to

In article <19980310001...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, nub...@aol.com
says...

>
>>
>>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 EFFOR
>TS
>>to prove yourself unworthy, happen to CARE about both of you! But
>>hey....go ahead and prove you are completely without scruples or hono
>r
>
>Did someone post your private email? No. Did anyone implicate you?
>Again no.
> So why shout to the world that you are somehow involved in all this?
> Listen
>to me, Xina. What you should be reflecting on is the harm you did las
>t year by
>supporting Katherine Griffis by persecuting me "for her" while she smu
>gly sat
>back and rested on her" dignity". If you had kept silent then as you
>ought to
>do now, maybe things wouldn't have gone this far. If you think I am
>"completely without scruples or honor", I may prove you right. The per
>son you
>say I "dishonored", lied to me and I can prove it. I have no respect
>for him
>whatsoever. Just remember, I save everything. So back off and don't
> start up
>with me again.

Have you thought of counseling? Really. It might be helpful. Une cure de
psychiatre.

Ramira Naka


xi...@netins.net

unread,
Mar 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/10/98
to

In article <3506db5b....@news.demon.co.uk>,

dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk (Doug Weller) wrote:
>
> On 10 Mar 1998 00:19:26 GMT, in sci.archaeology, Nubkhas wrote:

> >Did someone post your private email? No.
Did anyone implicate you? Again
no.


You posted a private message in which *I* ( Geoff Graham in that context
was referring to ME, my given name IS Christina) was brought up. In that you
dragged me into this.....and I can tell you, if I have to take off work and go
to Minnesotta or *GOD FORBID*, south of the Mason-Dixon Line to Georgia over
this load of crap, I am going to be more torqued than you can possibly know!


> > So why shout to the world that you are somehow involved in all this?


See above....


>>Listen
> >to me, Xina. What you should be reflecting on is the harm you did last
year by
> >supporting Katherine Griffis by persecuting me "for her" while she smugly
sat> >back and rested on her" dignity".

Apparently you thought my apologies to you over my past usenet posts that I
wrote to you this past summer were hollow,
perhaps? And if you ask **anyone** in and around the whole nasty
affair you would KNOW that if I stood behind anyone since that time, I
supported YOU! Believe it or not, Marianne, I *do* still have a great deal of
respect for you . I still DO have a link to YOUR drawings on MY webpage. FYI,
I pay a premium for
my webspace and access Marianne. This is something I do because I love the
subject matter
that my site focuses on, and I link to your drawings and the list that
you moderated up until recently because I do still
consider you a friend. It doesnt matter that you may not believe me. Check it
out.

http://www.netins.net/showcase/ankh

Scroll down the page under the picture of Ma'at.

"Pharonic Portraiture by Marianne Luban"

If you still doubt my intentions, and with regard to copyright
considerations, as well as legal implications - at your request I can remove
it. Its your call. I would regret doing it, because I happen to like the
artwork and still consider you a friend. I personally think this whole STUPID
thing needs to just be forgotten and kept out of the NG's. You are better
than this...at least what I know of you, you are.

Christina (aka Xina)

> Are you including Xina in your lawsuit? You did say you were going to sue
>other people besides Kathereine.

Damned well better not. All I can say if that is the case, 'Good bloody
luck!' She can stand in line, you cannot bleed a stone.


-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading

Nubkhas

unread,
Mar 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/10/98
to

>Listen, blubberguts.
>
>A year ago you posted here. "I'm through with this NewsGroup. Fuck you
>all. I'm out of here."
>
>Why can't you simply keep your word for once?
>--
>Alan M Dunsmuir

A year ago I suggested repeatedly that you need to see a
mental health expert. Yet you have not done so. Is it
a lack of funds that is standing in your way? Perhaps
we could all take up a collection for you.

Stephen Heneghan

unread,
Mar 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/10/98
to

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.


Yuri Kuchinsky

unread,
Mar 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/10/98
to

Nubkhas (nub...@aol.com) wrote:
: >Listen, blubberguts.

Well, I'm willing to contribute maybe a couple of bucks for Alan, my old
pal.

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku NEWLY UPDATED

Seeing is deceiving. It's eating that's believing.


Avi.Ja...@pbdir.com

unread,
Mar 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/10/98
to

In article <3502C7...@PioneerPlanet.infi.net>,

Saida <sa...@PioneerPlanet.infi.net> wrote:
>
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> > 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

Legal/Griffis Consulting

unread,
Mar 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/10/98
to

On 9 Mar 1998 23:59:09 GMT, nub...@aol.com (Nubkhas) wrote:

>>
>>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.

The Constitution of the United States:

"Article IV

Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the
public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.
And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which
such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect
thereof."

Source: http://thoth.stetson.edu/hop/students/mccoy/usconst.htm

reply to: grif-co...@geocities.com

Loren Petrich

unread,
Mar 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/11/98
to

In article <19980310154...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
Nubkhas <nub...@aol.com> wrote:

>>Listen, blubberguts.
>>A year ago you posted here. "I'm through with this NewsGroup. Fuck you
>>all. I'm out of here."
>>Why can't you simply keep your word for once?

>A year ago I suggested repeatedly that you need to see a


>mental health expert. Yet you have not done so. Is it
>a lack of funds that is standing in your way? Perhaps
>we could all take up a collection for you.

You're itchy, aren't you, Ms. Marianne Luban?

Nubkhas

unread,
Mar 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/11/98
to

>"Article IV
>
>Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the
>public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.
>And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which
>such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect
>thereof."

That applies to criminal acts, not to stupid, frivolous and meglomaniacal
lawsuits. Just try to enforce your default
judgment in the state of Minnesota. I am waiting for you.

Nubkhas

unread,
Mar 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/11/98
to
in the state of Minnesota. I am waiting for you. Just to give you an example
of how ludicrous this is--say you get an order against me for "contempt of a
court order". The ultimate remedy for that
would be jail-time. Who is going to come all the way from Alabama
to Minnesota to put me in jail? You?


Nubkhas

unread,
Mar 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/11/98
to

Amendment XI (1798)

The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any
suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States
by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.
>


Message has been deleted

Doug Weller

unread,
Mar 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/11/98
to

On 11 Mar 1998 17:03:03 GMT, in sci.archaeology, Nubkhas wrote:

>
>Unlike most in this god-forsaken newsgroup SHE does not write
>only drivel and sanctimonious posturing that isn't worth taking up
>bandwidth for. The name of Marianne Luban is associated with art, not garbage
>that shames humanity like one finds here. Here, chew on this lttle bone,
>Bowser:
>From:
>" 500 Great Books By Women" (Penguin Books, 1994) page 363
>
>"The Samaritan Treasure" by Marianne Luban, 1990, United States, Short Stories.
>
>"With rich imagery and insight, these five short stories (and novellas) by
>Marianne Luban give perspective on Jewish life

And that looks great, Marianne. I'm not sure why you are calling everyone else
in this newsgroup garbage, or why you are even here for that matter.
But I do know that you have shown yourself to be a person of great extremes and
that your behaviour here has shown yourself to have an extremely unpleasant
side. Offhand, I can't think of anyone in sci.archaeology who has been as
unpleasant as you in the last year.

Doug

Nubkhas

unread,
Mar 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/11/98
to

Doug Weller wrote:

>Offhand, I can't think of anyone in sci.archaeology who has been >as
unpleasant as you in the last year.

Well, thinking doesn't seem to be your specialty, anyway, so why
bother doing any more? Why don't you simply look into a
mirror?....Oh..oh...sorry about that, Dougie. Maybe I shouldn't have made that
suggestion. Well, never mind, mirrors can be
replaced. As for the seven years bad luck...what the hell...I mean, don't let
it stop you from crossing at busy intersections or anything.
Promise?

BTW, just who are the people in the newsgroup who are pleasant?
These persons must have escaped my notice.

Harlan Messinger

unread,
Mar 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/11/98