 |
 |
Now I can't find Kathrynne's original post re this but I do believe it said the the law from '78 (?) INCLUDED e-mail. Bonnie In a message dated 11/18/99 2:20:55 AM Eastern Standard Time, [log in to unmask] writes: > kathrynne and i wrote, in part: > >> there is no privacy in cyberspace and > >> no 'laws' governing behaviour > > > > In the United States, the 1978 Copyright Law... > > Canadian copyright laws ... > > that is precisely my point > 'we' are not in the usa or in canada here > no one nation's laws apply to cyberspace > it is a new frontier > all the old rules are under scrutiny > > in any case > the general premise behind copyright is > protection against loss caused by 'stealing' another's property for gain > > if someone photocopies a page from your book [with attribution] > and distributes them at no charge to their non-profit pd support group > there is no loss to you, no gain by the support group > and no theft of copyright; > > in fact, it could be construed as free advertising for your book > > based on the above, > PubMed and NandoNet both assured me a couple of years ago > that posting credited articles of theirs to you lot > was not a problem > > the same principle would probably apply to e-mail > > in re martha rohrer's message to me > there is no inherent value in it > she could not sell it > i forwarded to a non-profit group at no charge > so once more, there is no loss, and there is no gain > > however, since she sent it to me uninvited and unsolicited > and i found the wording offensive as well as false, > i believe that arguments could be made for spam > or misuse of communications or libel > or invasion of privacy > > but like i said > this is a whole new world > and a whole lot of existing national regulations > are inapplicable, unenforceable and probably irrelevant > > > janet >