* Not a lawyer, Scott Weiser practises copyright law on the internet.
1996-05-04 0:00 ` Brian Bell on harassing email Scott Weiser
@ 1996-05-04 0:00 ` The Right Reverend Colin James III
1996-05-04 0:00 ` The Right Reverend Colin James III
` (2 subsequent siblings)
3 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: The Right Reverend Colin James III @ 1996-05-04 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
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
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Not a lawyer, Scott Weiser practises copyright law on the internet.
1996-05-04 0:00 ` Brian Bell on harassing email Scott Weiser
1996-05-04 0:00 ` Not a lawyer, Scott Weiser practises copyright law on the internet The Right Reverend Colin James III
@ 1996-05-04 0:00 ` The Right Reverend Colin James III
1996-05-04 0:00 ` The Right Reverend Colin James III
1996-05-08 0:00 ` Brian Bell on harassing email Tom "Tom" Harrington
3 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: The Right Reverend Colin James III @ 1996-05-04 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
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
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Not a lawyer, Scott Weiser practises copyright law on the internet.
1996-05-04 0:00 ` Brian Bell on harassing email Scott Weiser
1996-05-04 0:00 ` Not a lawyer, Scott Weiser practises copyright law on the internet The Right Reverend Colin James III
1996-05-04 0:00 ` The Right Reverend Colin James III
@ 1996-05-04 0:00 ` The Right Reverend Colin James III
1996-05-04 0:00 ` Ian Firth
1996-05-08 0:00 ` Brian Bell on harassing email Tom "Tom" Harrington
3 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: The Right Reverend Colin James III @ 1996-05-04 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
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
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Not a lawyer, Scott Weiser practises copyright law on the internet.
1996-05-04 0:00 ` The Right Reverend Colin James III
@ 1996-05-04 0:00 ` Ian Firth
1996-05-06 0:00 ` system
0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Ian Firth @ 1996-05-04 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Useless, patent-leather software for wanks and supermarkets.
Mirror Mirror on the wall, who's the wierdest of them all:
Colon James 1/3, Principal Lunatic
cjames, cjames rant, rant james, rant@cec-services.com
CEC Services, LLC, 2080 Kipling St, Lakewood, CO 80215-1502
Voice: 382.5968; Fax: 277.4653; Data: 675.2637
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
So I can legally do the same thing then ?
BTW, can you decipher my phone code above ???
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Not a lawyer, Scott Weiser practises copyright law on the internet.
1996-05-04 0:00 ` Ian Firth
@ 1996-05-06 0:00 ` system
0 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: system @ 1996-05-06 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
In article <318C4C23.617E@divsoft.com>, Ian Firth <ian@divsoft.com> writes:
>~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
> Useless, patent-leather software for wanks and supermarkets.
> Mirror Mirror on the wall, who's the wierdest of them all:
> Colon James 1/3, Principal Lunatic
> cjames, cjames rant, rant james, rant@cec-services.com
> CEC Services, LLC, 2080 Kipling St, Lakewood, CO 80215-1502
> Voice: 382.5968; Fax: 277.4653; Data: 675.2637
> ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
>
>So I can legally do the same thing then ?
>BTW, can you decipher my phone code above ???
This counts as satire and is protected by the first amendment.
I am quite willing to believe that e-mail is considered copyrighted
material, however if Colin is commenting on it, then his use may well
fall under fair use, especially since the commercial value of such
e-mail is likely nil, and he did not quote the whole thing.
While monetary damages are unlikely to be accessed, if a breach of
copyright law was found to have occured an injunction could be put
in force against Colin against further such action. I would expect
that any violations of such an injunction would come under the
heading of contempt of court with attendent penalties.
So to summarize, even when Colin is right (an apparently rare event) he
is wrong.
Cheers,
Robert
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Brian Bell on harassing email
1996-05-04 0:00 ` Brian Bell on harassing email Scott Weiser
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
1996-05-04 0:00 ` The Right Reverend Colin James III
@ 1996-05-08 0:00 ` Tom "Tom" Harrington
3 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Tom "Tom" Harrington @ 1996-05-08 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
Scott Weiser (Scott.Weiser@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: 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.
It's probably a waste of time anyway. If someone violates your
copyright, you can sue for financial damages. Except in very rare
cases, you'd have a hard time proving any sort of financial loss
as a result of posting private email.
Then there's the forgery question. It's easy to forge a Usenet
article in someone else's name; so even if you sued, it'd be
possible for the defendant to claim that the posting was a forgery,
from someone else.
--
Tom Harrington --------- tph@rmii.com --------- http://rainbow.rmii.com/~tph
--------==========> KOOK CODE: (Grubor+)*2 Fomin+ KC: 3 <==========--------
This signature is not to be removed under penalty of law,
except by the consumer.
---> Visit CONSPIRACY ONLINE: http://rainbow.rmii.com/~tph/bunker.html <----
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread