Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 09:18:11 04/06/03
Go up one level in this thread
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. 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 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 0.01 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.