Who we are   Organizations   Get Involved!   Helpdesk   Weblog   About FLORA   Server project   F.A.Q.

Election 2006 (and beyond): Digital Copyright Canada

Re: Legal issues with mailing lists.

From: fireweed_-at-_gilanet.com
To: flora-admin-help_-at-_flora.org, flora-admin-help_-at-_flora.org
Date: Sun, 18 May 2003 09:24:25 -0600
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0305161315030.4301-100000@chinet.chinet.com>

Speaking as Pednet's co-founder and first-year's administrator:

To answer your first question about the transfer of Pednet from the U.S. to
Canada, when I asked Chris and Russell to take the list, as far as I know
we did not consider copyright laws. You're right.

Everyone on the list was given warning that we were transferring Pednet and
given a chance to sign off (we were careful about this). When we set up the
ftp site with all digests and several papers and articles, we did so with
full knowledge of people on the list. No one objected and many used the
site (I know because I had to keep explaining how to get there).

We were able to copy a few of the more useful dialogues to floppies, but
since CD's weren't around back then, we did not copy the whole thing. I
assumed any server backups were not designed for our use. 

Now that we have the capacity to copy what all assumed would be around
indefinitely, we don't seem to have the right (Adam and I are going round
and round about this).

Previously, while it worked (before spammer days), Pednet was open. You
could post to the list without being a member and if you knew the ftp
address, you could get to the digests without being a member. All on the
list knew this. It was in the intro login information.

We assumed that disclosure alerted people to their rights. And as
administrator, I was scrupulous about requesting permission before using
messages for any but list purposes. I made this contact mostly out of
courtesy and respect, rather than for legal reasons. But the latter was
always in my mind.

Times are different now. You have to be more careful. I do believe it's
time to compose the fine print. But as far as Pednet is concerned, as part
of an historian impulse, I would love to capture those early discussions
(very different from what's going on now). And if I were to use a quote for
my own current committee work, I would know where to look.... a few of
those early writers are now friends and would grant me rights.

It was always assumed the list was an open discussion, the content to be
used in advocacy or professional work. That's what the list was for. Not
just for emotional support for those trying to do unpopular political work,
but to give them content for their debates.

People did request permission to quote, so even then, there was a
consciousness about rights. Who knows what actually happened, but the group
seemed comfortable sharing (thus, the ftp digests).

I'm speaking out of two sides of my mouth here. On the one hand, I think
listserv messages are public property, and on the other, I think it's
important to formalize a contract between administrators and users to
protect both the listserv and server administrators and the users. As
Russell implies, there's probably already a lot out there in terms of
internet copyright laws.

Although part of my own Pednet discussion is really a private one between
Adam and myself, I was pleased that this subject of rights came up here.
It's that time in history to ask and to sort out .... but who knows about
resolution.... the medium is still in process, right?

Pam

At 12:23 AM 5/17/03 -0400, Russell McOrmond wrote:
>On Fri, 16 May 2003, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>
>> This doesn't concern Chris or me, per se. This would be of concern to a
>> number of subscribers. We get messages posted to Pednet that range from
>> chatty to what could be considered a proto message for a scholarly
>> article. Several of our subscribers have their own Web sites, some of
>> which are quite elaborate, especially Todd Litman's VTPI site. They
>> would not agree that posting an article in an email message to Pednet
>> means that they've given consent to having that article republished in
>> an unrelated media.
>
>  This is something to fix up very quickly then.  I never intended to
>offer via FLORA.org the ability of people to post scholarly articles via
>mailing lists that are believed to have such copyright restrictions on
>them.
>
>  Your other issue of someone re-publishing without attribution, or 
>claiming it to be their own, is not affected by the license agreement that 
>I'm discussing.  If someone did that then they are in violation of 
>copyright (moral rights) in Canada, and likely in violation under tort law 
>as well (although I'm not as familiar with this area of law).
>
>  Sounds like either the list should be moved, and/or these people should
>be told to only post URL's to the list rather than full text.
>
>---
> Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/> 
> Governance software that controls ICT, automates government policy, or
> electronically counts votes, shouldn't be bought any more than 
> politicians should be bought.  -- http://www.flora.ca/russell/
>

Please read the FLORA.org Terms and Conditions before you submit information to FLORA.org
Join the Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign (USA) (Canada)	FLORA Community Web (FLORA.ORG) is sponsored by FLORA Community Consulting (FLORA.CA).