Re: Web Archive of Mailing List
Samuel Lewis (slewis@CompLaw.com)
Mon, 10 Jun 1996 19:48:19 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 19:48:19 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <199606102348.TAA05517@foyer.homecom.com>
From: Samuel Lewis <slewis@CompLaw.com>
Subject: Re: Web Archive of Mailing List
At 11:52 AM 6/10/96 -0400, Peter Krakaur<ils@legalethics.com> wrote:
>I am not sure what "expectation of privacy" buzzwords have to do with it.
>You are entitled to your opinion, but I think the owner of a particluar
>list service discussion group is entitled to call it public, private, or
>restrict the re-publication of messages however he or she wants. If you
>want to set up your own list and take the time to screen messages and pay
>for server space, then you can call it a "public" list. But in a case
>where you do not manage the list, I think your claim that all messages are
>public rings a bit hollow.
The "expectation of privacy" buzzwords were a response to someone who felt
that their reasonable expectation of privacy was being violated if the
messages from a mailing list were put on the web in an archive. My message
was not a discussion on the entire issue (including copyright ramifications,
etc.) but rather a response to one minor point in the discussion.
I never said that all messages were public, nor did I ever suggest that a
list owner did not have the right to call the list whatever they wanted. I
said that there are varying types of lists with varying degrees of openness.
If the list owners of webethics want to call this a closed list or a
monitored list (as Net-Lawyers is), they have that right, I would be the
last person to attempt to deny them that right.
>As a closer, I question the propriety of taking archives of this list and
>posting them without the approval of the list owner. It was not clear to
>me from Mr. Lewis' message whether the establishment of an "unofficial"
>archive would have the approval of this lists owner. At a minimum, it
>appears to be bad netiquette.
I resent the characterization you provide here. I am not "taking archives
of this list" and posting them "without the approval of the list owner".
What you suggests smacks of a tort, which is hardly the case. The actual
status is this: I have saved messages which I, as a subscriber, have
received from the list. The archive in question was created by me, and
certainly not a taking. Additionally, I sent a message to the list owner as
well as to the list in toto to discuss the issue before placing anything on
the web. Nothing has been made public, nor would anything be posted without
the consent of the list owner at the very least, and perhaps not even
without the consent of the list members.
If I wanted to be a renegade, violate netiquette and the like, I could have
created the archive, posted it to the web, and then simply announced it.
Instead, I have opened the issue for discussion by both the list owner and
the list members. Is this bad netiquette or a misunderstanding?
--Sam
____________________________________________________________________
Samuel Lewis, Attorney-at-Law : Romanik, Lavin, Huss & Paoli
slewis@CompLaw.com : Hollywood, Florida
http://www.CompLaw.com/~slewis : Phone: 954-922-4656
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Nothing in this message is meant < Finger for PGP >
to be taken by the receiver as a legal opinion. < public key >
_______________________________________________________________
College Hill Internet Consultants || 382 Benefit St. Suite 3
Full Service Web Design For || Providence, RI 02903
Legal & Business Professionals || VOICE: (401) 454-3553
E-Mail: home@collegehill.com |||| FAX: (401)-454-1925
WWW: http://www.collegehill.com |||||||