bmaxey1@juno.com
Date: 02/18/01-03:16:29 AM Z
>>That's my understanding. Bob Maxey seems to be claiming that once
you've
>>written an e-mail to this (or other) list, anyone can use it for any
>>purpose, willy nilly. For all practical purposes maybe they can, as far
as
>>my power to STOP them, but not *legally.* If so, I could legally copy
and
>>distribute anything from any print publication, which I cannot. I may
be
>>beneath their radar, or not worth their trouble (I hope), but doubt I'd
>>have much defense in law. Ditto e-mail.
To be clear about what I am saying: Once you have posted to a public
list, there is little you can do to prevent anyone from using it to their
own ends. Let's face it, virtually all info that is posted to mailing
lists is not worth worrying about, is publicly available information.
Facts can't be protected, just their representation and how the author
uses them. If I published a book of Alt formulas, some info from this
list would be recognized because most of the info is either common sense
or available elsewhere. I can express the info in my own words and
nothing could be done about it.
I read very little on mailing lists that has not been cross posted, or
facts that are available from other sources, or are posted without much
basis in fact, or are questions people want answers to and receive
differing opinions about, and so forth. None of this is worth protecting
and can't be protected in most cases.
If you value some new idea that can be nurtured towards a great work or
sold to a publisher, do not post it to a mailing list or you will loose
out when someone else "discovers" the work. You will loose.
Who owns any specific piece of info? For example, most of what has been
posted about this subject is not worth trying to protect because it can't
be protected, because it is a fact. No offence, but very little new info
comes down the pike. Then there is the problem of no control over cross
posting info from other lists so the genesis of the tidbit is not known
because it might have come from a third post earlier on.
There has been no clear control by the list owner to prevent the
reposting of information from previous posts. You can't all of a sudden
take the matter to court and expect relief. There has been no steps taken
to say that this info is protected and must not be re-posted or copied
without permission.
Consider this statement:
>>If so, I could legally copy and
>>distribute anything from any print publication, which I cannot. I may
be
>>beneath their radar, or not worth their trouble (I hope), but doubt I'd
>>have much defense in law. Ditto e-mail.
We are NOT talking about taking info from print publications - we are
talking about e-mail and mailing lists. I surely recognize that there are
a set of laws - well established, to protect print. This is e-mail and
mailing lists and as of yet, there are not too many decisions about this
specific situation.
Besides, most anything in print can be added to and re-written. Is this
wrong? Certainly not, or most magazines would find it difficult to
operate because there are no new ideas. But print is different - it is
more visible than most things on the Internet.
I certainly would take steps to protect my work if it was stolen. Some of
what I write takes lots of time and research to complete, and the last
thing I want is some third party posting my articles on their web site,
or ending up in a technical journal or used in an article without my
permission or that of the corporation I wrote it for. I am not without
feelings for this issue, but I am realistic. But we need to realize that
these days, if you uncover an infringer, you will most likely never see a
penny from the courts. And when you consider how utterly insignificant
Internet Mailing Lists are, it might not end up in court.
Bob
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 04/02/01-09:55:25 AM Z CST