4.0676 Copyright; Email tapping (3/68)

Elaine Brennan & Allen Renear (EDITORS@BROWNVM.BITNET)
Thu, 1 Nov 90 21:38:08 EST

Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 4, No. 0676. Thursday, 1 Nov 1990.


(1) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 90 16:17:44 GMT+0100 (28 lines)
From: macrakis@gr.osf.org
Subject: 4.0668 Searching & Copyright

(2) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 90 13:26:03 EST (25 lines)
From: "L. Dale Patterson" <LDPATT01@ULKYVM>
Subject: 4.0668 Email tapping...

(3) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 90 14:49:04 EST (15 lines)
From: Sheizaf Rafaeli <USERLLHB@UMICHUB.BITNET>
Subject: Email tapping...

(1) --------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 90 16:17:44 GMT+0100
From: macrakis@gr.osf.org
Subject: 4.0668 Searching & Copyright


>From the point of view of copyright law, it seems to me that there's
not much problem for most texts. Although it is clear that such a
search service is in some sense a `derived work', nonetheless it does
not reduce the value of the original work by substituting for it.

I say `most texts' because on the other hand, for certain kinds of
book, it CAN effectively substitute for the purchase of the book.
This is true for instance of many reference works in general and
dictionaries of quotations in particular. But for most novels and
general non-fiction I'd presume that the point of the search is not
simply to extract a piece of text, but locate its position in the
original, which you then consult.

I'm thinking of the reasoning followed by a court some years ago in a
case where the New York Times sued an independent producer of a
special index of the NYT. (Sorry, I don't have the citation.) The
court's argument was that the index was not useful without the
original text, and so could only add value to it, not take it away.

-s

PS The above is not legal advice. I am not a lawyer.

(2) --------------------------------------------------------------33----
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 90 13:26:03 EST
From: "L. Dale Patterson" <LDPATT01@ULKYVM>
Subject: 4.0668 Searching & Copyright; Email betrayal; Epson (3/69)

This is in response to Bob Kraft concerning E-mail 'tapping'. As an
archivist I was interested in the Epson case. It shows the growing
complexity of the e-mail situation. I am concerned by those who would
browse through others e-mail without notification; just as I would those
browsing through memos. But I am equally concerned by those who would
say that all e-mail is private and should never be touched. Such
attitudes are extremes. E-mail is neith just private or just part of
the coporate culture. This is where the archival practice of record
analysis comes into play. Already in several states open records laws
exist which have direct impact upon e-mail and voice mail. Cincinnati
University and Michigan at Ann Arbor have been dealing with the problem
of scheduling for archival retention e-mEven at the federal level there
has been some work done done on e-mail retention. Just think of the
implications if Oliver North's e-mail had been declared private! In any
case we need to wrestle the issue of what is personal in e-mail and what
rightfully belongs to the institution; just as we have with paper
documents.

-- Dale Patterson
University of Louisville
BITNET: ldpatt01 @ ulkyvm
(3) --------------------------------------------------------------21----
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 90 14:49:04 EST
From: Sheizaf Rafaeli <USERLLHB@UMICHUB.BITNET>
Subject: Email betrayal

Re: Bob Kraft's story about Epson's policy of monitoring
all E-mail. A fascinating topic. Of course, urban lore
needs to be taken with agrain of salt and more than your
standard disclaimer/cautions.

My favorite rumor is about the Aerospace corporation that
discontinued EMail, (IBM's PROFS, in fact), due to its use
for unionizing. Anyone else heard the rumor? Anyone
know if it is more than a rumor?

Sheizaf