Re: Moderator

[John Mitchell <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Excellent response, Ed. Assuming you were writing from a UK perspective, I
only add that I believe the analysis would be identical under U.S. Law.

John
____________
John T. Mitchell
http://interactionlaw.com
1-202-415-9213


On 4/25/05 12:00 PM, "Edward Barrow" <edward@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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.