(COPY) Citing E-mail (summary)

Hugh Jarvis (C129QP43@UBVM.BITNET)
Wed, 5 Oct 1994 22:54:49 EDT

Interesting info on the citing of E-mail forwarded from the
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