[geeks] Copyright questions

[Chris Byrne]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: geeks-bounces at sunhelp.org 
> [mailto:geeks-bounces at sunhelp.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan C. Patschke
> 
> > There is no accepted law or practice on quoting something 
> like a mailing
> > list as far as I know.
> 
> Why not?  It's known to be in public circulation (via the 
> archives), so
> it's a published work.
> 
> > I'm not even sure who would "officially" own such a copyright.
> 
> The poster.
> 

Actually according to most case law it's not. As far as I know there is
no specific copyright law relating to electronic mailing lists, and in
the absence of specific legilation we fall back on relevant case law. 

I also don't know of any case law pertaining specifically to online
mailing lists, but there's plenty that relates to print mailing lists,
newsletters, letters pages in magazines, anthologies and the like. 

The prevailing case law on this issue holds that the publisher owns the
copyright to all materials printed in a newsletter or anthology (or
other similar publication) unless specifically noted otherwise. This
includes personally attributed letters to the editor and similar items.
Most magazines in fact specifically stipulate that any submissions
become theirs.  

A very good argument can be made however that electronic mailing lists
are significantly different in nature from printed collections and so a
different rule should apply. I hold this opiion myself. 

For one thing can the administrator or hosting provider of an electronic
mailing list be said to be a publisher? 

If they ARE a publisher they can be held legally liable for statements
made on their lists. There have been a few cases involving things said
in yahoo or aol forums or chat rooms and the results have been mixed.
Some courts have held them liable,some have not, and theres been no
conclusive standard set by the appeals courts. Even if there had been, a
forum or chat room isnt the same as a mailing list. 

If anyone knows of either written law or case law that would clarify
this issue I'd love to hear about it. 

A definition. Case law is the de facto practice of law defined by cases
setting precedent relevant to de jure written law. Basically judges tend
to look at how other judges interpreted an existing law, or the lack
thereof, in making their judgments.

Chris Byrne