For some of us the email is given to you alone for you to read - not to use as you see fit. An email (or a conversation) isn't quite the same as a gift...

I don't know how they do things in Canada, but in the US our laws are generally stongly in support of ownership. You guys can read this stuff if you want to know a little about copyright, though I doubt it will help much because it doesn't explain how courts apply it (all of this is from http://www.copyright.gov/...e17/92chap1.html#102)

§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use38
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

I'd like to be able to drunkenly express an observation that my boss's boss is seriously fat without that getting back to her.

Right, bad mouthing your colleagues without fear of public reprisal. Exactly what I said.

Cheers
DMT

That's wonderful. Got a cite for a case where anyone was sued successfully for copyright violation for publicly posting private communication?

I have a hard time imagining this landing in front of a judge and getting a sympathetic hearing.

I can not explain how fair use is applied any further than the original example I’ve gave, because not even the courts can set up a generalized rule. The Supreme Court, in the majority opinion for Harper & Row v. the Nation, 1985, stated “the doctrine is an equitable rule of reason, no generally applicable definition is possible, and each case raising the question must be decided on its own facts.” While no one knows exactly how a particular case would go, there are general ideas and guidance has been developed. So if you want more information talk to a copyright lawyer who will have a far greater knowledge than I have. Cultural institutions such as libraries, museums, archives or even publishing companies may also be able to provide you with information as they bear a large amount of responsibility for an array of copyrighted records and materials.

I’m sorry that it has taken me so long to respond. There are only so many hours in the day that I can dedicate towards helping people on RC.com.

Fortunately protection against copyright infringement does not hinge on the violator being aware of the U. S. Code or even common law. Examples of court cases, fine. This is really an old issue that even came up with the private correspondence of George Washington (see Folsom v. Marsh, 1841). The test for fair use, which Dingus surely overlooks in his claimed exemption for teaching, was partially established in this case, and some aspects were later used in the Copyright Act of 1976.

For a more contemporary case, one can look to a suit dealing with the private letters of the author of the Catcher in the Rye, J. D. Salinger. In the 1980s he sued Random House to stop them from publishing a biography that was largely based on private correspondence of his that wound up in various archival holdings. As Judge Newman states in his ruling “The copyright owner owns the literary property rights, including the right to complain of infringing copying, while the recipient of the letter retains [95] ownership of "the tangible physical property of the letter itself." (J. D. Salinger v. Random House and Ian Hamilton, 1987) This statement clearly marks the distinct differences in ownership, which I brought up in my first post. The judge ended up ruling in Salinger’s favor as the use of his unpublished letters failed to meet the four-point test for fair use.

However, the letters of George Washington or J. D. Salinger actually have literary value as well as potential financial value. As far as I can tell, copyright protection of literary work does not extend to things of no literary value--like PMs posted here.

Further more "fair use" doctrine clearly allows reproduction of others works where the reproduction is for the purposes of commenting on or being critical of the reproduced works. I would imagine that covers most of the use we are discussing here.

Curt

Or, more simply:

Why do people WANT to post PMs?

I'm missing something here, I'm sure. Please inform me.

Why do people WANT to post PMs?