RE: [cobalt-users] Importing old list content

["Reece B Morrel Jr" <reecejr@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 11 May 2004 00:11:37 -0400, wcstaff wrote
> > There are several issues.. among them copyright, fraud, 
> > mis-representation
> > and a few other things you could only find out about by doing 
> > it... and I
> > wouldn't advise it as I will go after anyone that does.. (now 
> > in multiple
> > countries) as time permits...
> > 
> > Zeffie...  "Get your Z's with Zeffie"  734-454-9117
> 
> I hope you are not quoting law. If so you are on dangerous ground. 
> Also, can you please shorten your signature on the bottom of your messages?
> It is a total waste of bandwidth..

Well, I am a lawyer - and without any preconceived opinion - I decided to 
take an unbiased look for myself - a Sgt. Friday "Just the facts, ma'am" 
examination.

Basically, as I see it, there are only three possible owners of the messages:
   1.  host of the list
   2.  original message author
   3.  Public Domain

HOST OF THE LIST
----------------
First, I went to the "cobalt list" main page and looked for any "end-user 
license agreement" or "terms of use" or any other similar type document 
describing, limiting or specifying how the list could be used.  I did not 
find one.

Granted that I only looked for a few minutes, but if one of my clients was 
designing a site, I would strongly suggest that they make it obvious and 
easily accessible.

ORIGINAL MESSAGE AUTHOR
-----------------------
Second, I examined some of the individual messages.  None of the messages I 
read had any "copyright" or other intellectual property right notices or 
insignia.  The closest thing to any type of "legal notice" was a disclaimer 
saying "your mileage may vary" so don't blame me if it doesn't work.

PUBLIC DOMAIN
-------------
Therefore, since no one else owns the list archives, I would suggest that 
the "PUBLIC" owns them by default.

SUMMARY
-------
Therefore, if the keepers of the new list want to alter the messages to make 
the list more useable and prevent the dead links - GO FOR IT!  Without any 
additional information or facts, I see no LEGAL REASON why you should not be 
able to do it.  

Now, if you are afraid of not getting your Z's since Zeffie has stated his 
intention to "go after anyone that does" that is a different matter - but 
not a LEGAL MATTER.

ALTERNATIVE LEGAL THEORY
------------------------
In the alternative, I would also argue that since Sun has stated their EOL 
policy toward the Cobalt product line, that the worst-case, most-limiting 
position anyone could take would be the BSD-type license under which we are 
now operating.  And, I do not think correcting/revising links would violate 
the Sun license.
 
OTHER ISSUES NOT INVOLVING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
------------------------------------------------
Zeffie, I am not sure how you would allege/plead/petition or prove a fraud 
or misrepresentation claim by correcting dead links - but I am always 
willing to learn new things about our wonderful, dynamic mistress known 
as "The Law" - so please let me know.

NOTE
----
It is not uncommon for persons to copyright material even when they have no 
intention of profiting from the material.  The primary reason is that it 
prevents people from "altering/modifying" the material in such a way that 
significantly changes the content or meaning of the material.  

Hypothetical example #1:  Would it be a significantly damaging modification 
if the keepers of the new list standardized the spelling of the hardware and 
software, i.e. Raq, RAQ, RaQ or raq 550, raq550, RaQ550?

Hypothetical example #2:  Is it harmful to Zeffie's "intellectual property" 
if you were to shorten his e-mail signature?