I think that the appelate court decision recently brought down means
  that the privacy dimension of copyright is completely removed for
  everyone, but I believe that any commercial losses resulting from
  lost revnues not personal damages is still intact. The personal
  damages in terms of revelation disapeared but malicious slander and
  other damages related to intent are still intact. Maybe this will
  stop the flaming and other obnoxious behaviour. The previous
  question of Presidential order is set aside here: it is
  communication between average citizens where no employment issues
  occur. The precedent means quite simply that email can be brought
  into legal proceedings and moreover that because the issue of
  privacy and publication was raised that they can be freely used in
  publications unless there is a clear indication of copyright. I have
  some of the articles, but I believe that they predate the recent
  decision. As far as I know in American law if a precedent can be
  cited, there is very little that can be done to overturn it except
  to go to an appelate court and that road has laready been blocked by
  a second decision. I think that we will have to afix a copyright
  sign to anything that we want to be copyrighted from now on. -- Paul.
 
> Actually, there is an entire article on this very subject, "Copyright in
> Cyberspace". Unfortunately, it is sitting on my desk at work, and I am home.
> I'll post the citation Friday.
>
> Anita Cohen-Williams; Reference Services; Hayden Library
> Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ  85287-1006
> PHONE: (602) 965-4579              FAX: (602) 965-9169
> INTERNET: [log in to unmask] Owner: HISTARCH
>
 
 
--
 
Dr. Paul S. di Virgilio,  University of Toronto  [log in to unmask]