Author: Uri Blass
Date: 11:08:00 04/06/03
Go up one level in this thread
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. 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. 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.