Re: Moderator

[Edward Barrow <edward@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I've replied to Socspace's post below..

Socspace@xxxxxxx wrote:

<snip/>

> Somewhere on the web I came across a source which declared
> that subscribers to a newslist/discussion group automatically
> acquire a copyright to the messages they post.

Not just newsgroup subscribers..

Everyone who writes something original automatically acquires copyright 
in the original work. So if newsgroup messages are sufficiently original 
(which is another question altogether), then the author of the message 
owns the copyright.

  Thus, for SOMEONE
> ELSE to crosspost one of MY messages to another newslist, without
> my permission, would not only be contrary to netiquette, but a
> violation of my copyright  -- technically speaking.  However, the
> practice has become so common, that trying to kick up a legal fuss
> about it would ORDINARILY be rather silly.

Most people who post to such forums expect - even hope - that their 
contribution will be reposted, as I have done with yours.

It may be a bit rash to assume that they always agree to it, so the more 
fastidious list-owners often have conditions which make it clear that 
posting is conditional on granting the appropriate quoting, reposting 
and archiving permissions.

Crossposting is less generally accepted but there are legitimate reasons 
for it.

> However, 1) were the crossposting PURPORTED to be an accurate
> representation of my original message,  but 2) in ACTUALITY a
> (demonstrably deliberate) distortion thereof, and 3) designed to expose
> me to ridicule 3) I might indeed have cause for legal action.

Indeed you might, but probably only secondarily under copyright. The 
wrong you claim to have suffered is much more like defamation.

In most jurisdictions you might also have a claim under the "moral 
rights" aspect of copyright law - (you do not say which country you are 
from).

The straight copyright infringement claim is weak; would you have 
objected to the reposting if it had not been in a defamatory context?

> I know I must have saved the source somewhere, but (disgracefully)
> can not find it.  Nor have I been able to rediscover it on the web.


> BTW, reason suggests (or at least, so it seems to me) that the
> violation at issue would increase in severity could it to be shown that
> 'twas but one element in a larger pattern of of harassment and
> defamation, for which legal action was already being contemplated.
> And, guess what? Such happens to be the case. Surprise, surprise :-)

If you are considering legal action, you should consult lawyers whose 
advice will be more specific to your case.

Without being more specific, the copyright infringements will probably 
just be "and another thing" in the wider defamation case.

A copyright case on its own probably wouldn't be worth pursuing. The 
economic damages in respect of the pure infringement will be minimal.

> Thus, I would be very, very grateful were one of you able to refer me to
> an authoratative source which makes the points discussed in my
> second and third paragraphs above.

Start with Article 2 of the Berne Convention and your own country's 
copyright laws.

But also look at what you may or may not have agreed to in the 
listowner's or ISP's terms and conditions and acceptable use policy.

> Simply your opinion on the subject would also be quite welcome.
> But -- should you proffer one -- please say whether or not I could
> feel free to quote it WITH ATTRIBUTION.

Of course, so long as you do not take it to be advice.


--
Edward Barrow
Copyright Consultant
edward@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
***Important: see http://www.copyweb.co.uk/email.htm for important 
information
about the legal status of this email