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

[Paul Jakma]

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004, ccostelloe at flogas.ie wrote:

> Because the sig is stating that this is private & confidential to
> the recipient only.  The sig is not imposing a new condition, 

Of course it is, if you knowingly post to a public list you can
reasonably be presumed to have dropped any right to privacy (see Joe
Duffy example in other email). So that statement is completely
meaningless when attached to an email intentionally destined for
public redistribution and archival.

However, you contend it is not so. Now as the sender clearly is aware
of the public nature of the list and has no expectation of privacy,
you're suggesting that just that wee statement "this email is
confidential" can somehow impose conditions upon the ILUG that would
not otherwise be there. Sorry, but that is either bull, or you owe me 
€1000.

> 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.

There is no right to privacy, the sender waived it, as well as 
licencing ILUG to redistribute and archive their post. (unless 
indicated otherwise by X-Archive).
 
> 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.

Different case altogether, and coincidentally i replied to Sean on
that subject. And again copyright violation would be indepedent of
any silly blanket-appended text. I cant tack on a notice of a licence
fee for the copyright of my mails and then send it to a list I know
to be public and with wide redistribution and then collect on
unilaterally imposed licence fees. Similarly, ILUG would have
(probably) an obligation to remove copyrighted material from the
archive if it were posted unauthorised, regardless of the
disclaimers.

In short, we're not arguing copyright. 

> 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.

I've seen plenty of literary competitions that state the 
usage/licence terms one indicates assent to by mailling your story to 
the competition address. You're talking bull.

> Ciaran

regards,
-- 
Paul Jakma	paul at clubi.ie	paul at jakma.org	Key ID: 64A2FF6A
	warning: do not ever send email to spam at dishone.st
Fortune:
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging 
their prejudices."
-- William James