Kirk McElhearn said:
> When I subscribe to a mailing list, no one asks me if I have
given up =
> the rights to use my posts for any reason. Although my words
are =
> public (but only in a limited sense, that is, to those who are
also =
> subscribed) I might not want them to be at the disposition of
just =
> any robot around.
[snip]
> The danger of this is obvious. Let us say that I have been
posting =
> to the alt.sex.minerals newsgroup, talking about how I like to
do it =
> with pumice. In ten years, if my wife wants a divorce, she can
hire =
> a bot to go snooping around and find that post, along with
others, =
> and get child support, keep me away from the kids; the whole
nine =
> yards.
And I say (restraining myself as much as I can to keep from
pulling my hair out over this issue) why in the world should
anybody consider something that is posted to an e-mail list or to
Usenet as private??? What does it take to get it through people's
heads that anything you say via an e-mail list or Usenet is JUST
AS PUBLIC as giving a speech in an auditorium filled with
people??? Just as public, no difference whatsoever, none at all!
There is no "limited sense" in which your words are public on an
e-mail list, since all but a very few e-mail lists are not
"limited" to certain subscribers. Consider: you give an open
admission lecture in an auditorium. Anyone can attend, no
screenings at the door. The press can attend, too. You speak,
people listen. The next morning there's an article on you in the
paper quoting what you said. Would anybody in their right mind
object that the speaker's privacy has been invaded?!?
What's the difference between that and speaking on Usenet?
The only possible "violation" I can see here is a copyright
violation. The reproduction of the *entire* auditorium speech in
print form would be a violation of current copyright law (I
think). Likewise, it might be possible under current copyright
law to argue that Darren is violating all of our copyrights by
archiving the list's posts (and Alias Datura is too, by keeping
the listserv-managed archived).
Though violation of copyright involves "privacy" and in some
loose definition of the word, it is rarely (if ever) also
considered an invasion of privacy in the legal sense. Current
copyright laws, of course, are thoroughly inadequate when dealing
with electronic texts, and no viable alternative has yet taken
hold. (For some texts on intellectual property rights you can
check out http://www.urich.edu/~ritter/epiph.html which was part
of a presentation I did at a conference on computers and writing
this January.)
You're speaking publicly, people. Face it.
-- Greg Ritter gritter@felix.vcu.edu ritter@urvax.urich.edu http://www.urich.edu/~ritter