The Sig Thing was Re: [ILUG] Got My First Linux Book

[ccostelloe at flogas.ie]

> On Fri, 23 Apr 2004, ccostelloe at flogas.ie wrote:
> 
> > Is that not a bit like tearing up an invoice and then expecting not
> > to have to pay it?  The sig has already been received by ilug.
> 
> This is the second time I'm asking you this question: how, pray tell,
> can emails unilaterally impose legally binding conditions on the
> recipient?

Because the sig is stating that this is private & confidential to the recipient only.  The sig is not imposing a new condition, so I am not paying you the money you want, but it is saying that in this case it is exercising the pre-existing right of privacy, and that they identity to who it is addressed, ilug, cannot redistribute it.

I know we block attachments, so it does not arise, but if we did not, we could not will-nilly allow copyrighted music and software be redistributed to the whole world by copying it to the publically-accessible archive.  Copying from the newsgroup to the public archive is redistribution.

In the same way, the Times cannot put in an automated copying system that automatically puts anything explicitly marked private into print, and then wash their hands of the problem by saying that it is an automatic system, so we don't have to worry about your rights of privacy or copyright.

Ciaran