Guest guest Posted April 15, 2001 Report Share Posted April 15, 2001 In a message dated 4/15/01 2:05:30 AM Central Daylight Time, 12-step-free writes: Publications generally own the material in them as a matter of common law and statute. It doesn't have to be a matter of contract. --Mona-- I'm curious, Mona, about your qualifications to make such a sweeping and over-generalized statement. For instance, we are not even sure a Yahoo list is a "publication" and not just another communication medium like radio or telephone. You are a copyright lawyer? Working, paid writer? Publisher or editor? Publication's Counsel? Edgar F. Coudal (edgarc@...) 5452 Azure Way Sarasota, FL 34242 voice fax Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 15, 2001 Report Share Posted April 15, 2001 In a message dated 4/15/01 2:05:30 AM Central Daylight Time, 12-step-free writes: Publications generally own the material in them as a matter of common law and statute. It doesn't have to be a matter of contract. --Mona-- I'm curious, Mona, about your qualifications to make such a sweeping and over-generalized statement. For instance, we are not even sure a Yahoo list is a "publication" and not just another communication medium like radio or telephone. You are a copyright lawyer? Working, paid writer? Publisher or editor? Publication's Counsel? Edgar F. Coudal (edgarc@...) 5452 Azure Way Sarasota, FL 34242 voice fax Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 15, 2001 Report Share Posted April 15, 2001 In a message dated 4/15/01 2:05:30 AM Central Daylight Time, 12-step-free writes: Publications generally own the material in them as a matter of common law and statute. It doesn't have to be a matter of contract. --Mona-- I'm curious, Mona, about your qualifications to make such a sweeping and over-generalized statement. For instance, we are not even sure a Yahoo list is a "publication" and not just another communication medium like radio or telephone. You are a copyright lawyer? Working, paid writer? Publisher or editor? Publication's Counsel? Edgar F. Coudal (edgarc@...) 5452 Azure Way Sarasota, FL 34242 voice fax Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 15, 2001 Report Share Posted April 15, 2001 You are a copyright lawyer? Working, paid writer? Publisher or editor? Publication's Counsel? Lawyer, who has litigated a few copyright cases. It's not an area of particular expertise, but I have a working knowledge of the subject.. Internet law is relatively new and still developing, but "they" are attempting to lay the same copyright template over it that obtains for other media. --Mona-- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 15, 2001 Report Share Posted April 15, 2001 At 01:20 PM 4/15/01 EDT, MonaHolland@... wrote: > >In a message dated 4/15/01 5:36:24 AM Pacific Daylight Time, edgarc@... >writes: > > >You are a copyright lawyer? Working, paid writer? Publisher or >editor? Publication's Counsel? > > >Lawyer, who has litigated a few copyright cases. It's not an area of >particular expertise, but I have a working knowledge of the subject.. >Internet law is relatively new and still developing, but " they " are >attempting to lay the same copyright template over it that obtains for other >media. I reread that (Section 8 of < http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>), and from what I read: Yahoo is not claiming copyright over anything. The original copyright rests with the author (as it always has unless specifically signed away, whether its got a claim like the one in my sig or not). YAhoo IS claiming the right to redistribute, publicize, whatever, some material to promote Yahoo groups, in exchange for hosting mailing lists. What I just learned from rereading is that the material they claim the right to do this with is 'publicaly accesible', such as messages in groups that are set as pubically readable without subscribing and/or logging into yahoo groups with a user name/password, like this one: <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gso>. Ken has this list set up so you can't read the list without subscrubing or logging in at groups.yahoo.com, so it's my understanding that what's sent to THIS list doesn't fall under what Yahoo is claiming. I actually read one of these messages - we haven't discussed that list in a while here: <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gso/message/630> Just the words used in the quoted part " that is an outside issue, and we have no opinion on that " brings me back to the limited, sacred language - the words are almost verbatim from the traditions. The rest of the message concerns being at an AA convention and trying to find street drunks to prosteletyze to, whom the police had so thoughtfully removed from the area because " there was a convention " . > >--Mona-- > ----- This post (except quoted portions) Copyright 2001, Ben Bradley. http://listen.to/benbradley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 15, 2001 Report Share Posted April 15, 2001 At 01:20 PM 4/15/01 EDT, MonaHolland@... wrote: > >In a message dated 4/15/01 5:36:24 AM Pacific Daylight Time, edgarc@... >writes: > > >You are a copyright lawyer? Working, paid writer? Publisher or >editor? Publication's Counsel? > > >Lawyer, who has litigated a few copyright cases. It's not an area of >particular expertise, but I have a working knowledge of the subject.. >Internet law is relatively new and still developing, but " they " are >attempting to lay the same copyright template over it that obtains for other >media. I reread that (Section 8 of < http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>), and from what I read: Yahoo is not claiming copyright over anything. The original copyright rests with the author (as it always has unless specifically signed away, whether its got a claim like the one in my sig or not). YAhoo IS claiming the right to redistribute, publicize, whatever, some material to promote Yahoo groups, in exchange for hosting mailing lists. What I just learned from rereading is that the material they claim the right to do this with is 'publicaly accesible', such as messages in groups that are set as pubically readable without subscribing and/or logging into yahoo groups with a user name/password, like this one: <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gso>. Ken has this list set up so you can't read the list without subscrubing or logging in at groups.yahoo.com, so it's my understanding that what's sent to THIS list doesn't fall under what Yahoo is claiming. I actually read one of these messages - we haven't discussed that list in a while here: <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gso/message/630> Just the words used in the quoted part " that is an outside issue, and we have no opinion on that " brings me back to the limited, sacred language - the words are almost verbatim from the traditions. The rest of the message concerns being at an AA convention and trying to find street drunks to prosteletyze to, whom the police had so thoughtfully removed from the area because " there was a convention " . > >--Mona-- > ----- This post (except quoted portions) Copyright 2001, Ben Bradley. http://listen.to/benbradley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 15, 2001 Report Share Posted April 15, 2001 At 01:20 PM 4/15/01 EDT, MonaHolland@... wrote: > >In a message dated 4/15/01 5:36:24 AM Pacific Daylight Time, edgarc@... >writes: > > >You are a copyright lawyer? Working, paid writer? Publisher or >editor? Publication's Counsel? > > >Lawyer, who has litigated a few copyright cases. It's not an area of >particular expertise, but I have a working knowledge of the subject.. >Internet law is relatively new and still developing, but " they " are >attempting to lay the same copyright template over it that obtains for other >media. I reread that (Section 8 of < http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>), and from what I read: Yahoo is not claiming copyright over anything. The original copyright rests with the author (as it always has unless specifically signed away, whether its got a claim like the one in my sig or not). YAhoo IS claiming the right to redistribute, publicize, whatever, some material to promote Yahoo groups, in exchange for hosting mailing lists. What I just learned from rereading is that the material they claim the right to do this with is 'publicaly accesible', such as messages in groups that are set as pubically readable without subscribing and/or logging into yahoo groups with a user name/password, like this one: <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gso>. Ken has this list set up so you can't read the list without subscrubing or logging in at groups.yahoo.com, so it's my understanding that what's sent to THIS list doesn't fall under what Yahoo is claiming. I actually read one of these messages - we haven't discussed that list in a while here: <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gso/message/630> Just the words used in the quoted part " that is an outside issue, and we have no opinion on that " brings me back to the limited, sacred language - the words are almost verbatim from the traditions. The rest of the message concerns being at an AA convention and trying to find street drunks to prosteletyze to, whom the police had so thoughtfully removed from the area because " there was a convention " . > >--Mona-- > ----- This post (except quoted portions) Copyright 2001, Ben Bradley. http://listen.to/benbradley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 15, 2001 Report Share Posted April 15, 2001 I have to agree with Ben here. That's my reading of the terms and conditions. Moreover, Congress passed a law in 1998 that gives a huge amount of protection to copyright holders whose material is digitally reproduced and distributed. I believe it's called the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. I believe we would be protected as authors of our postings even if Yahoo did claim our copyrights in its terms of use -- aren't contracts of adhesion supposed to be given extra scrutiny because there can be no " meeting of the minds " ? Mona, if you have access to the Internet, you have a law library at your fingertips, though it's a little lengthier maneuvering around it than it would be in your office. > > > >In a message dated 4/15/01 5:36:24 AM Pacific Daylight Time, edgarc@a... > >writes: > > > > > >You are a copyright lawyer? Working, paid writer? Publisher or > >editor? Publication's Counsel? > > > > > >Lawyer, who has litigated a few copyright cases. It's not an area of > >particular expertise, but I have a working knowledge of the subject.. > >Internet law is relatively new and still developing, but " they " are > >attempting to lay the same copyright template over it that obtains for other > >media. > > I reread that (Section 8 of < http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>), > and from what I read: > > Yahoo is not claiming copyright over anything. The original copyright > rests with the author (as it always has unless specifically signed away, > whether its got a claim like the one in my sig or not). YAhoo IS claiming > the right to redistribute, publicize, whatever, some material to promote > Yahoo groups, in exchange for hosting mailing lists. > What I just learned from rereading is that the material they claim the > right to do this with is 'publicaly accesible', such as messages in > groups that are set as pubically readable without subscribing and/or > logging into yahoo groups with a user name/password, like this one: > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gso>. > Ken has this list set up so you can't read the list without subscrubing > or logging in at groups.yahoo.com, so it's my understanding that what's > sent to THIS list doesn't fall under what Yahoo is claiming. > > I actually read one of these messages - we haven't discussed that > list in a while here: > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gso/message/630> > Just the words used in the quoted part " that is an outside issue, > and we have no opinion on that " brings me back to the limited, sacred > language - the words are almost verbatim from the traditions. The rest > of the message concerns being at an AA convention and trying to find > street drunks to prosteletyze to, whom the police had so thoughtfully > removed from the area because " there was a convention " . > > > > > >--Mona-- > > > ----- > This post (except quoted portions) Copyright 2001, Ben Bradley. > http://listen.to/benbradley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 15, 2001 Report Share Posted April 15, 2001 Copyrights typically cover artistic works. dramatic works, literary works, and musical works. Yes, those are the categories typically covered in legal encyclopedias, since virtually all copyright disputes revolve around them. I'm not saying the rest of what you said is wrong, but some of it flies in the face of what I was taught. I'll have access to a legal enclyclopedia in a few days and will check it out, if for nothing else than to resolve the matter in my own mind. --Mona-- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 16, 2001 Report Share Posted April 16, 2001 At 01:20 PM 4/15/01 -0400, you wrote: Lawyer, who has litigated a few copyright cases. It's not an area of particular expertise, but I have a working knowledge of the subject.. Internet law is relatively new and still developing, but " they " are attempting to lay the same copyright template over it that obtains for other media. All mail (e-mail included) becomes the property of the recipient. They can do with it what they please. The *content* of mail, a separate issue, must have some commercial value to be protected by copyright. Shopping lists likely do not qualify. Unless the intellectual content of an e-mail can stand alone as a literary work, the intent of letters is presumably communication. Copyrights typically cover artistic works. dramatic works, literary works, and musical works. A. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 16, 2001 Report Share Posted April 16, 2001 I'm with Mona here. Authorship confers copyright. I'll be interested to see what Mona turns up when she's able to consult the legal encyclopedia. Traditionally, lovers get their letters back when the relationship breaks up. Seems like tacit acknowledgment of this principle (also foils blackmail attempts, to get somewhat facetious, but you know what I mean). Also, how can you say whether something has commercial value until it's published for a price? If it's published for a price and flops, does that mean the author's lost the copyright? I don't think so. Let us know what you find out, Mona. > In a message dated 4/15/01 8:52:12 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > annie@s... writes: > > > > Copyrights typically cover artistic works. dramatic works, literary works, > > and musical works. > > > > > > Yes, those are the categories typically covered in legal encyclopedias, since > virtually all copyright disputes revolve around them. I'm not saying the > rest of what you said is wrong, but some of it flies in the face of what I > was taught. I'll have access to a legal enclyclopedia in a few days and will > check it out, if for nothing else than to resolve the matter in my own mind. > > --Mona-- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.