Author: Uri Blass
Date: 04:23:09 04/06/03
Go up one level in this thread
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. 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). If the letter is a work of art then it is defended by the law that protects right of authors of work art but even in this case if it was published in order to criticize then it may be defended by 2(1)(i) of that law http://www.tapuz.co.il/tapuzforum/main/articles.asp?id=434&art_id=11 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.