Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

    •  
      CommentAuthorpcstru
    • CommentTimeMar 29th 2013
     
    Posted By: maryyugoWhen you send email to someone without a copyright symbol or a contract, I believe you are giving up any rights. I'm no expert in this. I remember reading the arguments somewhere years ago.


    No. Copyright is effective from the moment a work is created. You don't need any copyright notice and you do not give up rights just by sending an email.
    •  
      CommentAuthormaryyugo
    • CommentTimeMar 29th 2013 edited
     
    One might think that they obviously own the emails but as the judgment makes clear once you think about what that would mean, it is not that obvious an answer.
    There are essentially 5 possible answers. Either

    i) the sender owns the email;
    ii) the receiver owns the email (by analogy with a letter);
    iii) the sender owns the letter but grants a licence to the receiver to use the email for legitimate purposes;
    iv) the receiver owns the letter but the sender has a licence to retain a copy and use it for legitimate purposes; or
    v) ownership is shared between the sender and recipient (and therefore also between anyone to whom it is subsequently sent).

    The judge rejected i) and ii) on the basis that if i) applied the sender would have the right to demand that any recipient no matter how far along the chain must delete the email and if ii) applied the recipient would have the right to demand that the sender delete its copy of the email and so on. In that case the only person entitled to the email would be the very last recipient.

    As regards options iii) and iv) the judge considered that there was no point in either of those given that there would only be very rare circumstances where someone might legitimately want to prevent someone else from using an email sent to them and where they could not already rely on the law of confidence to do so.
    The judge also rejected option v) on the basis that that would lead to absurd results as well. For example, anyone who sent you an email could on that basis demand access to your servers to see to whom you forwarded the email and that could apply to anyone no matter how many people stood between you and the original sender.

    On that basis the judge rejected the company’s claim to a proprietary right to the emails.


    http://www.gardnercroft.co.uk/emagazine/who-owns-your-emails/

    It's important to note that there is precedent for letters. The recipient, not the author, owns letters. You can sell them and copy them without permission. If you don't like that, don't send the letter!
    •  
      CommentAuthormaryyugo
    • CommentTimeMar 30th 2013
     
    •  
      CommentAuthorpcstru
    • CommentTimeMar 30th 2013 edited
     
    Posted By: maryyugo
    http://www.gardnercroft.co.uk/emagazine/who-owns-your-emails/

    It's important to note that there is precedent for letters. The recipient, not the author, owns letters. You can sell them and copy them without permission. If you don't like that, don't send the letter!


    I think that's orthogonal to the issue of publishing correspondence sent to you. Your example similar to buying a DVD. I own the DVD and if the company that owns the rights to the material lost all their copies, they would have no right to demand I provide them with my copy (nor, if they suddenly decided to withdraw the material from sale, would they have a right to demand I destroy my copy). That doesn't mean that I own any rights to the material and can re-publish it for my own ends.
    •  
      CommentAuthorpcstru
    • CommentTimeApr 2nd 2013 edited
     
    There was an interesting piece on BBC Radio 4's Out of the Ordinary yesterday which covered some of the copyright/ownership issues with email and social media accounts, specifically what happens to you when you die. What people were finding was that organisations (facebook, gmail, yahoo etc) were reluctant or unwilling to give access to accounts run by the deceased to the family/estate. This can only get worse as people commit ever more stuff to 'cloud' storage services - their entire photo libraries or all their documents including digitised copies of insurance etc.

    Personally, I'll be leaving a single paper document with the key for my lastpass account which should give access to everything. And I'll be keeping my cloud private with OwnCloud (NB - not for the faint of heart MY's of this world).
    •  
      CommentAuthormaryyugo
    • CommentTimeApr 5th 2013 edited
     
    Somebody at the Defense Intelligence Agency (of all places) is upset that Krivit mentioned her names and quoted her, apparently internal, emails announcing some sort of "cold fusion colloquium" at "The Plasma Physics Division of the Naval Research Laboratory". Not sure why she is quite that provoked. Either there will be one or there won't. I doubt that it's classified but even if so, why would she not want her name mentioned?

    http://news.newenergytimes.net/2013/04/04/intelligence-analyst-gripes-to-new-energy-times-about-publishing-leak/

    http://news.newenergytimes.net/2013/03/28/lenr-nrl-will-host-colloquium-on-cold-fusion/

    And there is a recording of the conversation between Barnhart and Kirivit apparently, here:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBm3xZA5xmU (at least there is one there at the moment)

    "You're publishing things without my permission....personal emails... without my permission and without running them through DIA Public Affairs... " etc. etc. Subtle threats follow.

    Originally found on e-catworld.com in comments.
    •  
      CommentAuthormaryyugo
    • CommentTimeApr 19th 2013 edited
     
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeApr 19th 2013
     
    I'm surprised you missed the kerfuffle around this. I think it might have been discussed here. The little community spent all their money dumping tonnes of iron oxide into the Pacific, just after European real scientists had agreed not to carry out a similar experiment on a smaller scale because the dangers were too unpredictable. There was quite a hue and cry against Canada's rogue environmental science, which was ironic because the current Harpogov is quite successfully shutting down environmental science in Canada until they can control the results. And anyway the government regulators didn't find out about the Haida Gwaii experiment until afterwards.
    •  
      CommentAuthormaryyugo
    • CommentTimeApr 19th 2013
     
    Buzz's blog takes on Krivit, ribbit.

    http://www.physicscentral.com/buzz/blog/index.cfm?postid=238052780327676025

    @Ang: I don't have time to catch it all. No need to dump rust into the ocean. Just leave a few of the derelict ships in the bay alone and they will eventually become rust buckets which sink. All by themselves. No charge.
  1.  
    Krivit and Rothwell must sit at their computers day and night waiting for alerts that somebody somewhere attacked their sacred cow. Ah the life of the martyr...
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeApr 19th 2013
     
    Ang: I don't have time to catch it all.


    Shocking!! How do you expect to be ready for the exam?
    •  
      CommentAuthormaryyugo
    • CommentTimeApr 20th 2013
     
    Posted By: OmphaloskepticKrivit and Rothwell must sit at their computers day and night
    Nah. I've been accused of doing the same from the other side but all it is in my case anyway, is Google alerts.
    •  
      CommentAuthorTrim
    • CommentTimeApr 24th 2013
     
    •  
      CommentAuthormaryyugo
    • CommentTimeApr 27th 2013
     
    coldfusionnow.wordpress.com is no longer available.

    The authors have deleted this site.


    Sorry if this has been mentioned before.
    •  
      CommentAuthoraber0der
    • CommentTimeApr 27th 2013
     
    The domain coldfusionsoon.com/eu/de/it/etc is still available.
    • CommentAuthortinker
    • CommentTimeApr 27th 2013
     
    •  
      CommentAuthormaryyugo
    • CommentTimeApr 27th 2013
     
    Thanks, Tinkie. Woooooooooooooooooooo!
    •  
      CommentAuthormaryyugo
    • CommentTimeMay 9th 2013
     
    The geniuses at Vortex have a hilarious string going about polywater. They even involve a perfectly legitimate company with that name which makes lubricants for pulling cables. It's very funny how dumb these people are despite several of them apparently having elaborate educations and even considerable work experience. Amazing.

    http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg79787.html
  2.  
    Wait until they hear about Fleisswater (tm TKLabs GmbH), the newest product from our European branch. Its properties are still secret (this week's "soon" announcement has been postponed until soon-after-next, sorry for the inconvenience) but are guaranteed nevertheless.

    And anybody who doesn't do their due diligence gets a swat upside the head.
    •  
      CommentAuthormaryyugo
    • CommentTimeMay 9th 2013
     
    Posted By: alsetalokinWait until they hear about Fleisswater
    Is that HEIDI Fleiss water?