Murph,
 
    You stated in your reply:
 
> Clearly if one posts SOMEONE ELSE's copyright material to a list it's a
> violation.
 
    That's *precisely* the point!
 
As Brad Templeton clearly points out in the Copyright "Myths"
article:
 
>'Myth # 3) "If it's posted to Usenet it's in the public domain."
> False. Nothing is in the public domain anymore unless the
> owner explicitly puts it in the public domain(*).
> Explicitly, as in you
> have a note from the author/owner saying, "I grant this to the
> public domain." Those exact words or words very much like them.
 
(for purposes of this discussion, Templeton's response
can be considered as applicable to mailing lists as well as to
Usenet newsgroups)
 
      And I should add that I *can* quote from Templeton's
article because it also includes the following:
 
> Permission is granted to freely copy this document in electronic
> form or in print if you're not selling it. If you had not seen a
> notice like this on the document, you would have to assume you did
> not have permission to copy it. This document is still protected by
> you-know-what even though it has no copyright notice.
 
      While it is advisable for anyone with specific concerns
(similar to those of the person posting the original message)
to consult with an attorney, it is also advisable for those who are
managing (or participating in) mailing lists to take the time to investigate
resources on the Net which are easily accessible
to become informed about these issues.  For similar reasons,
discussion of the location of these resources is also appropriate
for the LSTOWN-L list.
 
Marianne
 
> At 8:44 AM 9/7/95, Marianne Brosseau wrote:
> >> The LONG STANDING tradition of the Internet is that unless you go to
> >> extraordinary means to insure otherwise ANYTHING posted to ANY list is in
> >> the PUBLIC DOMAIN
> >
> >        Those who believe this *fallacy* are well advised to check:
> > * Brad Templeton Home Page * Copyright Myths
>
> Oops.  I clearly went overboard by not including the adjective ORIGINAL.
> Clearly if one posts SOMEONE ELSE's copyright material to a list it's a
> violation.  Beyond that, in the absence of a clear statement to the
> contrary, I *assume* that what I say may be repeated, with or without
> attribution, and I rather doubt I'd have much luck trying to claim
> otherwise.
>
> I'll take a look at the web sites when I next have an opportunity.
> However, web sites are not accessible to everyone, and the sheer volume of
> data makes it unlikely that anyone is going to have the capacity to keep up
> with it all.  Hence, as I indicated before, if the original questioner
> REALLY wants to raise the issue with publishers, then an attorney, not
> LSTOWN-L is the place to ask.
>
> On Thu, 7 Sep 1995 17:39:49 EST, Bob Kosovsky wrote:
> >I'm fairly sure that an
> >email message is a copyrightable work.  Under the current law, then, even if
> >there is no copyright symbol or mention of "copyright by..." every email
> >posting is a copyrighted work.  Like this one.
>
> Is there ANY case law on the proposition that an email message containing
> NO mention of copyright IS copyrighted?  If I quote only a portion of the
> whole, does fair use apply?  I suppose one of these days someone with deep
> pockets and a LOT of curiosity will seek to sort it out.
>
> /s Murphy A. Sewall <[log in to unmask]> (203) 486-2489 voice
>    Professor of Marketing                          (203) 456-7725 fax
>    http://mktg.sba.uconn.edu/MKT/Faculty/Sewall.html
>
>
 
-- Marianne Brosseau
<[log in to unmask]>