Publishing Emails and PMs received. Is it always wrong?

[Montydog 135]

This is open debate, I will not talk to you under the table.

 

And at your invitation I am reproducing your PM:

 

 

Can I also reproduce the PM you sent this afternoon?

 

 

B.B, I don’t think you need the senders permission to publish or discuss a PM received. Once someone sends you a PM or E-mail it’s yours just like in the virtual world a letter through the post would be.

[joekicker 53]

B.B, I don’t think you need the senders permission to publish or discuss a PM received

 

I think it is HUGELY rude to publish a PM without it, and in some cases worse than rude. In 100 cases out of 99, it's a breaking of trust. A person sends you a PM *because* he does not want it in public. If you just turn around and publish it, it means you can't be trusted.

 

As always, there are exceptions.

 

.

[Montydog 135]

I think it is HUGELY rude to publish a PM without it, and in some cases worse than rude. In 100 cases out of 99, it's a breaking of trust. A person sends you a PM *because* he does not want it in public. If you just turn around and publish it, it means you can't be trusted.

 

As always, there are exceptions.

 

.

 

 

Joe, I agree but that doesn’t change the fact that once sent “private” correspondence becomes the property of the receiver.

[MM 6,562]

I think it is HUGELY rude to publish a PM without it, and in some cases worse than rude. In 100 cases out of 99, it's a breaking of trust. A person sends you a PM *because* he does not want it in public. If you just turn around and publish it, it means you can't be trusted.

 

As always, there are exceptions.

 

.

 

I fall in the camp of those who think that a received email or PM, especially an unsolicited one, is fair game to be made public. If it were a friend, that's another thing altogether, but as an "aside" to a thread where the PM is contrary to what is said in the thread, why not?

[nkped 1,208]

My question was to appeal on the severity of the sentence.

 

The appellate courts would have to be rather faster in the UK than in the US to hear and decide an appeal in 7 1/2 months.

[joekicker 53]

I fall in the camp of those who think that a received email or PM, especially an unsolicited one, is fair game to be made public. If it were a friend, that's another thing altogether, but as an "aside" to a thread where the PM is contrary to what is said in the thread, why not?

 

Well, "not" because the person who wrote (and just by-the-by owns the copyright to) the PM decided it should NOT be public, and why is your decision about his writing more important than his decision about his writing? And despite the copyright comment I'm not suggesting there will be *legal* problems in 100 cases out of 99, either.

 

I'll stick with "rude or worse" and, as above, insist there are exceptions for sure.

 

In the real world, publishing a PM almost always is of the "gotcha" genre, where the exposer has a snarky "... then why did you say this in your PM?" intro. So I suppose you (general "you") don't care if you're rude to the guy anyhow. But in my world, you've gone the extra mile to be *more* rude.

 

But I think you're a bit disingenuous with the "if it were a friend" exception. Sounds more like an out than a commitment. It lets you and only you decide who's a friend and how close a friend while you think about whether to publicise the person's personal mail to you that he figured was fairly private.

 

Personally: I try not to write things down EVER that I might be sorry for, and rudely publishing my PM wouldn't -- I hope -- cause more than very mild and brief embarrassment. Personally, I don't publish one-on-one correspondence without asking (with possible exceptions). I will maintain it's a matter of trust to a large extent, and publishing breaks that link of trust.

 

.

[MM 6,562]

I've split this out of the Chivas topic because, well, it's not really on that topic, and more importantly (to me, at least), it might be interesting to discuss the issue.

 

I've made my point that I don't see it as a black and white situation. Joe calls that being disingenuous.

 

So, for the rest of you, when do you think it is acceptable to publish an email or PM, and what steps, if any, should you take before doing so?

[Montydog 135]

Well, "not" because the person who wrote (and just by-the-by owns the copyright to) the PM decided it should NOT be public, and why is your decision about his writing more important than his decision about his writing? And despite the copyright comment I'm not suggesting there will be *legal* problems in 100 cases out of 99, either.

 

 

.

 

 

 

 

http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p01_uk_copyright_law

 

 

At a quick glance I don’t see “P.M’s on an Internet Site” covered

 

 

 

 

 

“Types of work protected

Literary

song lyrics, manuscripts, manuals, computer programs, commercial documents, leaflets, newsletters & articles etc.”

 

 

 

 

Though on second thoughts if you wrote them in Verse or Song form

Edited November 17, 2011 by Montydog

[joekicker 53]

At a quick glance I don’t see “P.M’s on an Internet Site” covered

 

There are lots of things you won't find specifically mentioned. In your list, I don't see letter. I don't see thank-you note. I don't see newspaper article. I don't see Internet blog entry. I don't see magazine editorial. I don't see hotel advertisement.

 

Nevertheless, any item you write down is copyright the instant you close or save it, and it is called a "work". This isn't opinion. And before you or someone asks, there are several EXCELLENT reasons why I'm not breaking copyright law by quoting you. Most important is that I am not claiming that I wrote it, in order to have "fair use" of it -- but there are others.

 

There are lots of things you won't find specifically mentioned. In your list, I don't see letter. I don't see thank-you note. I don't see newspaper article. I don't see Internet blog entry. I don't see magazine editorial. I don't see hotel advertisement.

 

Do you also believe that song music is not copyright -- that you can just go ahead and record "I Wanna Hold Your Sand" using the Beatles' music, and take the profits for your excellent recording?

 

Any item you write down, by any means, is copyright the instant you close or save it, and it is called a "work". (There are exceptions, usually of shortness, such as the TITLE of a work can't be copyright, which is why you see lots of movies and songs with the same titles.) This isn't opinion.

 

And before you or someone asks, there are several EXCELLENT reasons why I'm not breaking copyright law by quoting you. Most important is that I am not claiming that I wrote it, in order to have "fair use" of it -- but there are others.

 

 

.

Edited November 17, 2011 by joekicker

[Montydog 135]

Joe I realise that you must always be "right" even when you are plainly wrong. So I tell you how to make some money.

Send me a PM then I will post it on here. Then you sue me for breach of copyright. And if you cant see where it mentions “articles” perhaps you could spend your payout on a eye test and some new glasses. That’s if you ever find a solicitor to take the case on instead of throwing you out of his office.

[9cisco999 107]

Joe I realise that you must always be "right" even when you are plainly wrong. So I tell you how to make some money.

Send me a PM then I will post it on here. Then you sue me for breach of copyright. And if you cant see where it mentions “articles” perhaps you could spend your payout on a eye test and some new glasses. That’s if you ever find a solicitor to take the case on instead of throwing you out of his office.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i think Joe seeks validation as opposed to money. 555

[Bazle 1,500]

Joe I realise that you must always be "right" even when you are plainly wrong. So I tell you how to make some money.

Send me a PM then I will post it on here. Then you sue me for breach of copyright. And if you cant see where it mentions “articles” perhaps you could spend your payout on a eye test and some new glasses. That’s if you ever find a solicitor to take the case on instead of throwing you out of his office.

Monty

 

You might find it useful to think back to the controversy over Princess Di's letters - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3204121.stm

[9cisco999 107]

Monty

 

You might find it useful to think back to the controversy over Princess Di's letters - http://news.bbc.co.u...ine/3204121.stm

 

 

 

interesting point Bazle. I'd ask if copyright laws are universal and if not, wouldn't the application of the article be country specific? Although I can't state as a fact, i believe if I bought at auction a letter written by George Washington , I could most likely publish the words in the letter.

 

 

If the 70 year rule applies to PM's, MM better insure his board has some heirs in place.

Edited November 17, 2011 by 9cisco999

[Montydog 135]

Monty

 

You might find it useful to think back to the controversy over Princess Di's letters - http://news.bbc.co.u...ine/3204121.stm

 

 

Fair point, but I think they are referring to the letters “not” sent to Burrell but to Diana there has been quite a few cases where errant M.P’s and the like have been exposed in the Sunday rags from letters they have sent to mistresses & rent boys etc. I cant remember anyone of them suing for “breach of copyright”.

 

I’m not saying publishing PM’s is an absolute “Right” or that in most cases it’s not morally suspect but go to most Auction houses and dealers that deal in Memorabilia and you see letters and personal correspondence for sale. Now if it were against the law why would such a trade be tolerated.

 

Also don’t forget I didn’t “technically” start this thread.

[joekicker 53]

Joe I realise that you must always be "right" even when you are plainly wrong. So I tell you how to make some money.

 

C'mon Monty, just read the posts, okay? I explained before you asked why this is impossible.

 

Mr 999: There is an international copyright law, yes, called a convention, and generally adhered to -- and there are national laws of course. Prime example: NOTHING from the US government is copyright, but almost everything issued by the UK government (and most governments) is copyright.

 

.

[Montydog 135]

To answer the original question posed by MM;

 

“is it always wrong”

 

My opinion, no not always, like a lot of things in this life it’s not a black and white issue, circumstances dictate the outcome.

[joekicker 53]

You might find it useful to think back to the controversy over Princess Di's letters - http://news.bbc.co.u...ine/3204121.stm

 

 

And J.D. Salinger and Hemingway in semi-similar US cases.

 

My opinion, no not always, like a lot of things in this life it’s not a black and white issue, circumstances dictate the outcome.

 

Absolutely, as I stated right at the start, we totally agree on that -- just maybe not on WHAT circumstances. But I can easily think up half a dozen cases where PMs SHOULD be revealed quoted. Just for starters, I'm not a priest, lawyer or doctor and any PMs to me about horribly illegal stuff like kiddie rape or porn, human trafficking, dope dealing, etc, I'd publish that in a heartbeat and probably do more than publish. No sick phuock should think for a heartbeat that he can confess to me confidentially.

 

I think we all agree there's a line, but apparently it's at different places. And life will surely go on.

 

.

[jacko 8,822]

To answer the original question posed by MM;

 

“is it always wrong”

 

My opinion, no not always, like a lot of things in this life it’s not a black and white issue, circumstances dictate the outcome.

Yes, good idea to get back to the original pertinent question, no need for barristers's showmanship.

 

Outside of reproducing those emails politicians seem to deliberately send... for an average Joe like me, I would say it is always wrong.

 

You are breaking a trust and the privacy of the sender, your only likely reason is spite, revenge, generally a poor reason.

Doesn't stop me keeping them though, just perchance.

[Gawd Elpus 798]

I think it is wrong. A PM is a "personal message". if it were not personal then it could be posted on the open forum.

 

If someone decides to post a copy of a private message sent my another person, then they are weasels. simple as that.

[papillon 695]

I don't have a problem with anybody making a PM Public.

 

If I publish a PM sent to me obviously I couldn't give a shit about the Sender.

[grayray44 49]

I don't have a problem with anybody making a PM Public.

 

If I publish a PM sent to me obviously I couldn't give a shit about the Sender.

 

Paps.

why bother having PM capability if they are posted here when ever the receiver feels like it? don't the P means personal/private NOT public?

 

regards

grayray

[papillon 695]

Paps.

why bother having PM capability if they are posted here when ever the receiver feels like it? don't the P means personal/private NOT public?

 

regards

grayray

 

I always thought Personal Message but either way it makes no difference to me.

 

Anybody that sends me a PM loses ownership of the content as soon as they hit the send button.

 

I have no responsibility for what other's decide to send me. If they want it kept private,best don't send it at all.

[Montydog 135]

Fuck me I must go to the doc tomorrow. I’m agreeing with Papilon and JK on the same day.

[grayray44 49]

I always thought Personal Message but either way it makes no difference to me.

 

Anybody that sends me a PM loses ownership of the content as soon as they hit the send button.

 

I have no responsibility for what other's decide to send me. If they want it kept private,best don't send it at all.

 

Paps.

maybe iam old fashion,it would be a loss of honour for me to post someones PM,would have no respect for anyone who did.

 

regards

grayray

[joekicker 53]

Anybody that sends me a PM loses ownership of the content as soon as they hit the send button.

 

And once again: No, they do not, any more than the Beatles lose ownership of their song just because you download and listen to it.

 

Personally, I think that is such a minor point when you are acting so unethically, but the sender of a PM never loses ownership, and for darned sure you don't gain it.

 

.

Edited November 18, 2011 by joekicker