logo Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register.
2024-02-23 11:39:15 CoV Wiki
Learn more about the Church of Virus
Home Help Search Login Register
News: Donations now taken through PayPal

  Church of Virus BBS
  Mailing List
  Virus 2005

  virus: RE: virus-digest V10 #256
previous next
Pages: [1] Reply Notify of replies Send the topic Print 
   Author  Topic: virus: RE: virus-digest V10 #256  (Read 2289 times)
Parker Whittle

Posts: 2
Reputation: 0.00

I have never logged in.

View Profile
virus: RE: virus-digest V10 #256
« on: 2005-12-13 13:39:10 »
Reply with quote

[[ author reputation (0.00) beneath threshold (3)... display message ]]

Report to moderator   Logged
David Lucifer

Posts: 2641
Reputation: 8.90
Rate David Lucifer

Enlighten me.

View Profile WWW E-Mail
Re:virus: RE: virus-digest V10 #256
« Reply #1 on: 2005-12-16 12:00:16 »
Reply with quote

Quote from: pwhittle@oz.net on 2005-12-13 13:39:10   

Interesting thing, that. Wouldn't it naturally apply to such details as an
individual's address, phone number, or e-mail address? Don't privacy laws as
those being debated in the EU give an individual an exclusive "coypright" to
their own personally identifiable data?

To own something means to control the use of the property and (mainly) to assert the right to use coercive force to prevent others from using the property. What does it mean to use an email address? Sending mail to it? Reading mail from it? Selling it? Publishing it?
Report to moderator   Logged

Posts: 4289
Reputation: 8.92
Rate Hermit

Prime example of a practically perfect person

View Profile WWW
Re:virus: RE: virus-digest V10 #256
« Reply #2 on: 2005-12-16 15:18:23 »
Reply with quote

Two contexts. The historic and the present.

When Jefferson wrote this,  the idea of copyright was relatively new, rather narrow (in that it was limited to authors and inventors for useful arts), and given the Constitutional meaning of the time, "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;", which is how Jefferson would presumably have understood it, so copyright could not possibly have been applicable - although the Constitutionally protected right to privacy (Amendment IV) which seems to be the latest clause to be [url=http://www.churchofvirus.org/bbs/index.php?board=65;action=display;threadid=34197]relegated to the ash-heap possibly would have applied had the information had been "private".

But a "private" address is of course, not terribly helpful. Addresses have to be published (although the publication could be constrained to a very small group) to be usable - which takes us right back to the control of published information - or copyright.  Looking at addresses as they are usually understood (including the mentioned variants) in the light of copyright in the modern overwhelmingly inclusive sense, I just don't think that there is sufficient "creativity" vested in individual addresses (although there might be in an addressing system, and definitely can be in a directory or even a database of addresses) for them to fall under the terms of the treaties dealing with copyright. So while "privacy laws", etc. may control how addresses are used, I doubt that any rights pertaining to addresses, are devolved from copyright law, let alone susceptible to successful public or private prosecution.

Report to moderator   Logged

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
Pages: [1] Reply Notify of replies Send the topic Print 
Jump to:

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Church of Virus BBS | Powered by YaBB SE
© 2001-2002, YaBB SE Dev Team. All Rights Reserved.

Please support the CoV.
Valid HTML 4.01! Valid CSS! RSS feed