|
|
(COPY) Citing E-mail (summary)Hugh Jarvis (C129QP43@UBVM.BITNET)Wed, 5 Oct 1994 22:54:49 EDT
AegeaNet, Louise Hitchcock -------------------------TEXT-OF-FORWARDED-MAIL-------------------------------- -Date: Sat, 1 Oct 1994 15:32:38 -0400 (EDT) -From: John Younger <jyounger@ACPUB.DUKE.EDU> -Subject: Citing E-mail (summary) -To: AegeaNet@ACPUB.DUKE.EDU, list-owners <cejo@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU>, lwright@CAC.WASHINGTON.EDU, naleks@PAPAYA.UMMED.EDU -Sender: aegeanet-owner@ACPUB.DUKE.EDU SUMMARY of authoritative responses concerning e-mail citing & copyright [I have down-loaded the previous *AegeaNet* discussions about citing and copyright and can e-mail these to the interested] After our discussions over AegeaNet in September about citing e-mail dicussions and questions of copyright, etc., I wrote Linda Wright, the list-server for Classics, and Chuck Jones, the list-server for ANE, and asked them their opinions; pretty much we all agreed on the basic principles that Paul Rehak and I had offered months ago and renewed: that e-mail was public and, since it is in written form, therefore published; and that one needed to watch what one writes in that forum as in any other. I then found a copyright e-mail discussion group(cni-copyright@cni.org) and an e-mail list-owners discusion group (list-managers@greatcircle.com) and put the matters to them. The responses are illuminating and I send them on to you. First, an abbreviated version of what I sent these two groups; and Second, the responses (a selection), edited with credits given. ----- Friends! I have a question, which probably your lists have an already composed answer for. I manage a list on pre-classical Greek matters, with a subscription of about 400 members (say 50 communicate regularly, another 100 occasionally, the rest lurkers), mostly professional. The list is young, barely 9 monsths old. Some of the professional archaeologists have become concerned that their comments on the net will be cited in published (i.e., written in journals, etc.) articles. And others have become concerned that their comments will be plagiarized by others without citation, or will be taken as fact without verifying. To the last two concerns, I have written, that, as in life, there's little one can do to protect one's ideas from being taken literally and from just being taken. As to the first concern, I (and other list-managers in this general field of classical studies) have offered a citation-formula (e.g., "I am indebted for this idea to So-and-so, LIST, Date). But many subscribers have assumed that e-mail discussion groups were like casual conversations. I reminded the subscribers, however, that each posting went to over 400 people, most of whom were 'lurkers'. So, my questions are: are e-mail discussions like published comments? what is an accepted way to cite them? are they automatically copyrighted or can they be copyrighted? is there such a thing as being liable for what one says on the net? ---- I repeat my four questions: > So, my questions are: > are e-mail discussions like published comments? > what is an accepted way to cite them? > are they automatically copyrighted or can they be copyrighted? > is there such a thing as being liable for what one says on the net? And here are some of the answers (with authors cited): 1) ARE E-MAIL DISCUSSIONS LIKE PUBLISHED COMMENTS? The rule of thumb is that you should not post anything to mailing lists or Usenet that you don't want your mother to know (or have posted on a billboard in your home town). scott@dsg.tandem.com The question should be: can something I say/write be cited Arguably yes. For example I can cite personnel letters (email or US mail) sent to me in articles. I can also cite discussions (whether they be in a bar or not). Also, I can cite talks/presentations in my papers. I think all aspects of citing email list traffic are covered under one of the above citation issues. John Rouillard Senior Systems Administrator IDD Information Services University of Massachusetts at Boston rouilj@cs.umb.edu 2) WHAT IS AN ACCEPTED WAY TO CITE THEM? I'd rather the user verified the statement to be quoted with the author and then cited personal communication. Carl Drott <drott@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu> College of Information Studies Drexel University Philadelphia, PA 19104 Citation is a little difficult: who, date and Message-ID are the most reliable pieces of information after a context. Alan Thew alan.thew@liv.ac.uk University of Liverpool, Computing Services One that I have seen looks like: Rouillard, John P., "Re: citations/copyrights of ...", via electronic mail on the <list> mailing list, 16:44EDT, September 26, 1994. John Rouillard Senior Systems Administrator IDD Information Services University of Massachusetts at Boston rouilj@cs.umb.edu I would tend to encourage using a Message-ID as well, as that field is known to be unique for each mailer. David Casti <disc@vector.casti.com> 3) ARE THEY AUTOMATICALLY COPYRIGHTED OR CAN THEY BE COPYRIGHTED? The truth of the matter is that *no one* knows. There are a lot of people who have shared a lot of speculation on this topic, but until a case arrives in front of a judge somewhere -- there is no case law on this matter. David Casti <disc@vector.casti.com> Per the Berne Convention, all writings are automatically copyrighted. No special notices are necessary. However, keep in mind that it has not yet been tested in court. Scott Hazen Mueller, Tandem Computers scott@dsg.tandem.com Anything in print (paper or electronically coded letters...) is copyrighted. If a person has an IDEA and gets it into PRINT of any sort, that print, which is the visible cloak of the idea is copyrighted. Only text can be copyrighted. Vocalized ideas need to be written down (song into scored music; speech into text). Copyright does not mean that material is not liftable, it means only that you can go to court over theft! BHARRIS@middlebury.edu Yes, everything you write is covered automatically by copyright. The question is: by posting do you give permission to repeat? Also remember that copyright protects utterances NOT ideas. If you don't want your ideas taken, don't utter them. Carl Drott <drott@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu> College of Information Studies Drexel University Philadelphia, PA 19104 4) IS THERE SUCH A THING AS BEING LIABLE FOR WHAT ONE SAYS ON THE NET? There was a case just about three years ago that settled part of this issue, specifically that the service provider [i.e., majordomo@acpub.duke.edu, and presumably the list-owner as well] was not legally liable for content. I do not recall hearing the outcome of the rest of the case, which would have established liability for electronically-disseminated publications. However, the safest route is to assume that, yes, you can be held liable for anything you say. Scott Hazen Mueller, Tandem Computers scott@dsg.tandem.com USENET news is in a similar situation. There have already been libel cases sucessfully brought which relied on electronic comments. It will probably vary form country to country. I personally would regard them as being in the public domain. Alan Thew alan.thew@liv.ac.uk University of Liverpool, Computing Services Yes, you can be liable, but most likely the penalty is being thought a fool by others. Carl Drott <drott@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu> College of Information Studies Drexel University Philadelphia, PA 19104
|