Not a lawyer, Scott Weiser practises copyright law on the internet.

[cjames3@concentric.net (The Right Reverend Colin James III)]

Scott Weiser <Scott.Weiser@worldnet.att.net> posted with deletions:

| What's more important is that this paragon of virtue and defender of the faith 
| seems to be commiting a tortious act *each and every time he post a private 
| e-mail message.*
| 
| You see, copyright law states that the *author* of a "work" holds the 
| copright, and this includes (according to legal precedent) private 
| correspondence.  
|
| This is a well established legal principle.
| 
| And it applies to e-mail just as much as it does to written letters, 
| photographs or other copyrightable materials.
| 
| So, each time that Mr. James publically "copies" and "publishes" a private 
| e-mail correspondence, he violates U.S. copyright law, and the authors of 
| those messages are the victims of tortious conduct and can sue him.
| 
| All of which is interesting, but since the courts would likely not find 
| against a mentally deranged person, it's probably a waste of time to sue.


Scott Weiser is mistaken, as usual, about copyright infringements.

All _email_ I receive becomes my sole property, naturally, with which I
shall do as I deem fit, including publishing it without the author's
original copyright notice and without express written permission. 

If anyone doesn't like that idea, then don't send me email.

I have purposely altered Weiser's original usenet article article by
deleting parts of it without his permision.  

I have also purposely altered Weiser's copyright notice by removing it
completely along with other things.  

According to Weiser's argument, he can bring a tort action of copyright
infringement against me.  

The proper venue would be federal court.  

I invite Weiser to do so. 

Any federal judge will throw Weiser out of court as being "mentally
deranged" for his specious arguement, which flies in the face of the spirit
and intent of copyright law.

That is because Weiser can not establish that damage exists, and hence
monetary valuation of the extent of damages is impossible to establish.

The point is that unless value can be proven, a copyright notice is
meaningless.  Hence, putting a copyright notice on trivial communication is
ultimately of no protection whatsoever.

Weiser would have been better off by going to Synagogue on Friday, rather
than trying to practice copyright law on the internet by proferring
unstudied opinions.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Re-usable, patented software for banks and financial markets. 
Mirror sites:  www.cec-services.com  &  www.cris.com/~cjames3
Colin James III, Principal Scientist, cjames@cec-services.com
CEC Services, LLC, 2080 Kipling St, Lakewood,  CO  80215-1502
Voice: 303.231.9437;  Facs: 303.231.9438;  Data: 303.231.9434
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~