[matilda] Re-posting emails

[atw]

Anthony> No, this is misleading (wrong, actually). Someone, if they
Anthony> wish/have the energy/have the money, can follow you up for
Anthony> breach of copyright (and/or moral right) if you republish an
Anthony> email they have written,

Interesting stuff but you're coming at this from a completely
different perspective from me. I wasn't making a comment about the
legality of the situation but real world interaction between people.

Emails like this are what I would call conversational. Conversations
can take place through a variety of media from phone to letter, face
to face or email. Despite what the government thinks I don't think it
is any business of the state to interfere with conversations between
people. I suspect a lot of people will agree with this. Copyright law
seems to be ignored by just about everyone.

The convention for face to face conversations is this. People don't
assume that what they are saying cannot be repeated elsewhere. If they
don't want it repeated they will usually get agreement from the other
person first: Can you keep a secret? I don't want this going beyond
these four walls etc...

I've not seen or heard anything that makes me think this convention
wouldn't apply to email conversations.

I don't think most people think in terms of copyright law when sending
conversational emails. In fact I suspect most people don't even know
that copyright laws can be applied in the way you've described.

I'd heard that automatic copyright existed in the US but didn't know
it now applied to the UK too. When did that come into force? The
state's obsession with private property is really leading them into
insane territory.

A few years ago I had a bizarre experience. I went to a big expensive
concert. On entry we were searched and they were asking if people had
cameras. At the time I thought they must be paranoid about terrorism
and that maybe they thought people could sneak a bomb in disguised as
a camera. But thinking about it later why just cameras? Couldn't any
electrical device be used like a mobile phone for instance. It didn't
make anys sense. I've now got a strong suspicion that the reason that
they wouldn't allow cameras inside was that they were attempting to
copyright reality.

Thankfully the vast majority of people completely ignore copyright
law. As a form of direct action it is surely the most widely
participated in direct action in the world. And the internet has made
breaking copyright law an even more popular pastime. Hooray!

steve



-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.0/167 - Release Date: 11/11/2005