Subject:
|
Re: Mladen Pejic... Cool down.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 7 Jun 2001 22:30:07 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
954 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> Really? Wow. Do you have any cites?
Will I do? Here are a couple:
From: http://www.rbs2.com/email.htm
"The recipient of e-mail is generally free to share the information in the
e-mail with anyone..."
"Unless the recipient has some duty of confidentiality (e.g.,
physician-patient, attorney-client, trade secret disclosed in
communication), the recipient is free to share the information with anyone.
However, under some circumstances, the sender might sue the recipient for
publicity given to private life, under Restatement (Second) Torts § 652D (1977).
If the e-mail were reproduced verbatim, or with only trivial changes, the
sender could also sue the recipient for violation of copyright laws.
However, if the e-mail was not marked with a copyright notice, then the
author can only recover the author's actual damages and "any profits of the
infringer that are attributable to the infringement", and the defendants can
claim "innocent infringement". 17 U.S.C. §§ 401(d), 412, 504(b). Since most
e-mail is not marked with a copyright notice and the expression in most
e-mail is not valuable [There is no copyright protection for either ideas or
information. 17 U.S.C. § 102(b)], copyright law gives little protection to
typical e-mail."
From: http://www.csmonitor.com/durable/2000/08/25/p1s5.htm
"But employers' right to monitor employees has been pretty clearly
established by the courts. "Private-sector employers are free to monitor
employees, whether or not they've told employees they are doing so," says
Kim Dayton, a law professor at the University of Kansas. "This is an issue
of ethics, not really one of legality.""
Matt (Fast becoming the 'Self-Proclaimed LUGNET King of Citing Stuff ©')
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Mladen Pejic... Cool down.
|
| Whoops! Guess I should have finished that last post BEFORE posting it (that's how it's SUPPOSED to work, isn't it?)! Larry's the more corrrect in this instance. E-mail confidentiality is mostly a politeness issue. Assume that "anything you say can (...) (23 years ago, 7-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Mladen Pejic... Cool down.
|
| (...) A little further legal note: As Rick was in fact commenting on Mladen's statements, the reproduction of his entire email would most likely be construed as "fair use" by a court in the US. The idea is that in order to have a free (...) (23 years ago, 7-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Mladen Pejic... Cool down.
|
| (...) Really? Wow. Do you have any cites? I thought letters were more like phone calls than like authored works. (only one party to a call needs to consent to it being recorded and disseminated) I had always assumed (1) that when I sent words to (...) (23 years ago, 7-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
52 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
