Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:15:25 04/07/03
Go up one level in this thread
On April 06, 2003 at 14:08:00, Uri Blass wrote: >On April 06, 2003 at 12:18:11, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On April 06, 2003 at 07:23:09, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On April 06, 2003 at 03:53:34, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>On April 06, 2003 at 01:53:08, Uri Blass wrote: >>>> >>>>>On April 05, 2003 at 23:01:41, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On April 05, 2003 at 04:14:07, Amir Ban wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On April 04, 2003 at 22:26:02, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On April 04, 2003 at 16:58:31, Amir Ban wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On April 04, 2003 at 13:36:23, Bruce Moreland wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Correct. Also, I did not reproduce the emails in whole, instead I quoted from >>>>>>>>>>them. I had some interest in preserving the author's copyright. If hairs are >>>>>>>>>>split, it may be found that I was a little loose with this, but on the other >>>>>>>>>>hand, the email to me also contained copyrighted material (the "art"). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>You are crazy if you are going to be defensive about this. I don't know where >>>>>>>>>the posters of this newsgroup got the queer notion that publishing an email or >>>>>>>>>letter you received is not legal, or a breach of copyright. It's not. A letter >>>>>>>>>you received is your property to do whatever you want with it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>This is actually wrong. The author of the email actually holds the copyright >>>>>>>>as the originally wrote it. IE if I write a paper and send you a draft to >>>>>>>>review you can _not_ publish it yourself. This has been tested in usenet >>>>>>>>newsgroups on more than one case. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Copyright and generally IP rights are about using or taking credit for something >>>>>>>created by another. There's no such issue here. You can send me a nobel prize >>>>>>>winning paper and if I post it here and say "Bob wrote me this" it's prefectly >>>>>>>ok. You can ask me to keep it secret, but you'd better clear this with me before >>>>>>>sending, because I don't have to agree. >>>>>> >>>>>>As I said, this is wrong. When I write something _I_ and only _I_ hold the >>>>>>copyright to that something. And if you publish it, without my permission, >>>>>>you are in violation of international copyright law. >>>>>> >>>>>>I've had to sit thru multiple presentations about this over the years, as it >>>>>>is a critical point in internet procedures. The main point of copyright law >>>>>>is the _author_ holds the copyright and doesn't give it up unless he does so >>>>>>in writing. IE just because I send you something does not give you permission >>>>>>to publish it, even crediting me, unless I specifically give you permission to >>>>>>do so. >>>>>> >>>>>>This has gotten many people into great trouble over the years. (not me >>>>>>fortunately). >>>>> >>>>>I supsect that it may be dependent on the country that you live and what is >>>>>legal in one country may be illegal in another country. >>>>> >>>>>I think that fair laws should not give the author of a letter copyright and >>>>>everybody who get a letter should be allowed to publish it when he does not hide >>>>>the source. >>>>> >>>>>The only exception is if the sides did an agreement that everything that is >>>>>between them is secret. >>>>> >>>>>It is absurd if an enemy can send me letters and write things against me and >>>>>later sue me if I publish the exact words. >>>>> >>>>>I believe that the rules in USA are not fair rules so they support this absurd. >>>>> >>>>>I am not a lawyer and I do not know the rules in Israel but I asked about them >>>>>in a forum of law in Israel and I expect to get a response. >>>>> >>>>>Uri >>>> >>>>Here is a link for the law in Israel(in hebrew) >>>> >>>>http://www.tapuz.co.il/tapuzforum/main/articles.asp?id=434&art_id=7 >>>> >>>> >>>>chapter a(it is alef but I translate hebrew letter to english letters) explains >>>>what is illegal to do against privacy: >>>> >>>>2.5 in chapter a says that copying a letter without agreement of the author is >>>>illegal if the letter has no historic value. >>>>Another case when it is legal to publish the content of the letter is in case >>>>that 15 year passed from the writing of the letter. >>>> >>>>6 in chapter a says that if there is no real demage to the author there is no >>>>right for the author to complain. >>>> >>>>Uri >>> >>> >>>I understood the law wrong >>> >>>I see that it talks about a third side that publish the letter and not about a >>>case when the person who got the letter published it. >>> >>>Here is another link >>> >>>I got this link as a response to my question in the relevant forum. >>>http://www.tapuz.co.il/tapuzforum/archive/viewmsg.asp?id=145&msgid=12659522 >>> >>>Translation of the link for english: >>> >>>branch 2(5) of the law forbid to copy a letter that was not supposed to be >>>published without permission of the writer or the addressee. >> >>I don't see how you get from the above (forbit to copy a letter that was not >>supposed to be published without permission) to >> >> >>> >>>It means that usually publication of the letter is not against the law. >>>exceptions are when there is agreement about secrets 2(8) or use of knowledge >>>about private secrets of a person 2(9). >>> >> >> >>the above. > >The law mean that C cannot publish a letter from A to B without permission of >one of A and B. I do not believe that, based on two different attorneys that made presentations to our department about this a couple of years ago. The basic tenet of international copyright law is that the _author_ implicitly holds the copyright on _anything_ he writes, unless he _explicitly_ gives up that copyright by giving someone permission to publish the material. But the point is that this is _implicit_. IE the copyright for anything I write is _mine_ unless I very explicitly give you permission to publish it. I have seen nothing to change this, and it has meshed with what I have seen every time I have looked it up or asked the question. There are some things that are not copyrightable, such as a string of digits, unless the string of digits is produced by some specific work I do and the digits mean something that is worth something. IE a single chess game is not copyrightable, because that could be produced by an algorithm (enumeration of all games). But a collection of games is copyrightable because the _work_ that went into producing the collection is protected. Just as the work of writing any text. Now if you post something in a public place, such as _here_, then things are different, because by making a post public, I give an indication that I choose to give up my copyright since it goes all over the world. > >If permission of one is enough then it means that B has the right to publish the >letter. > >Note that it is only the law in Israel and I understand from what I read here >that the law is not the same in USA. > > > >> >>I believe that international law says that the author holds the copyright on >>anything he writes. And that the publisher has to have permission to publish >>something he did _not_ write. Anything else takes a huge chance... > >If the publisher is a third side then it is clear that he has to have >permission. When I publish a paper in a journal, I have to first assign the copyright of the article to the publisher, in writing. Ditto for publishing a paper in a conference proceeding. Etc. > >If the publisher is not a third side then I guess that it is dependent on the >country and there is not one law in all countries. > >Uri
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.