Subject: Re: Human Experimentation : Civil, Criminal, Constitutional ? : It is still going on.
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6700
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 18:22:00 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 18:22:00 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
As I said, the intent is to protect from flamers etc.
No one can possibly consider the intent to be bad.
In practise, if it restricts someone's use, I would fall back on the intent
and say, if the person has no intent to harm, no problem at all.
I think fair use is defined in commercial (money making) terms.
Usenet is outside the Mammon domain.
Therefore, the only motivation is public sevice and personal safety.
I would not inconvenience anyone who has a difficulty with newsreaders, etc.
"Winfield Hill" wrote in message
> John wrote...
> > News2020 wrote
> >> To answer your query, I do not see any issues at all in copying
> >> relevant portions in a reply.
> 2020, I was referring to someone whose newsreader automatically
> copies your entire post, and he fails to edit any out. While
> copying a small portion is fair use, copying the entire work is
> not, according to law, AIUI. While I dislike folks who're too
> lazy to edit their posts and pair down the quoted material, your
> attempt to make lawbreakers of them is much more distasteful and
> in fact repulsive to me.
> > Well, there is; copyright law is quite explicit in this case. Your
> > statements are equivalent to granting a general public license to quote
> > your texts in reply to your posts but not to use them to defame you.
> > That may be the most sensible thing you have produced in a long time.
> I don't see it. Someone defaming 2020 would do so most effectively
> by copying selected portions of the posting and then interspersing
> their comments, which is a fair use fully allowed by copyright law,
> even assuming a Usenet copyright would hold up in the first place.
> Should someone be able to copyright their emails in a chat room?
> - Win