From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sat May 7 00:42:26 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AB5116A4D6 for ; Sat, 7 May 2005 00:42:26 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtp11.wanadoo.fr (smtp11.wanadoo.fr [193.252.22.31]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3BFB43D7B for ; Sat, 7 May 2005 00:42:25 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from atkielski.anthony@wanadoo.fr) Received: from me-wanadoo.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mwinf1101.wanadoo.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 26C7E1C000A0 for ; Sat, 7 May 2005 02:42:25 +0200 (CEST) Received: from pix.atkielski.com (ASt-Lambert-111-2-1-3.w81-50.abo.wanadoo.fr [81.50.80.3]) by mwinf1101.wanadoo.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 005831C00097 for ; Sat, 7 May 2005 02:42:24 +0200 (CEST) X-ME-UUID: 20050507004225157.005831C00097@mwinf1101.wanadoo.fr Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 02:42:24 +0200 From: Anthony Atkielski X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <1075392968.20050507024224@wanadoo.fr> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <200505070226.37132.danny@ricin.com> References: <20050506103934.10FA34BEAD@ws1-1.us4.outblaze.com> <9e46c99e0505061454572a1bba@mail.gmail.com> <1647772623.20050507004959@wanadoo.fr> <200505070226.37132.danny@ricin.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE! X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 07 May 2005 00:42:26 -0000 Danny Pansters writes: > Which shows how bad cratic souvereign counties are gettingthey're accepting US > corp law as their own. Copyright law is fairly consistent in the industrialized world. > Anyway, stuff your DMCA.. until we have a valid precedent for it I'd say stuff > it. There's already a lot of jurisprudence to draw upon. > What if it's the US DMCA against a big French software house (assuming > you have one). How would you think your gov would react? I suppose my government would either apply French copyright law if the infringement were in France, or U.S. copyright law (i.e., the DMCA) if the infringement were in the U.S. > Now go back to someone complaining about their want-on sent messages > being archived... yeah sure they would cave in. Dream on. It's surprising what courts care about sometimes. > And besides as other people have pointed out in the realm of cyberspace once > you post something willingly, it's impossible to retain it and any perceived > profit that would have been generated by it (yes, the court will ask about > this loss of profit). It's a loosing shipwreck trying to go to court for > that. You can still obtain relief in various forms. > It may just end up as what most people would expect: considered "fair > use" ... I'm not aware of any cases in which reproduction of an entire work has been held to be fair use; fair use is usually interpreted pretty narrowly. > ... and if it doesn't it's going to loose over technicalities alone, like when > you answer back quoting the original message. Were you breaking copyrights? That's not a technicality, nor is it relevant to the main question. > No judge is going to do that dance, not even in the crazy paranoid > corporate stronghold culture we live in these days. Forget it. You don't know what a judge will do until you're in court. > Still... would the OP please try to sue so that we get a nice jurisdiction > about this. Rather now than later. Be careful what you wish for. -- Anthony