Publishing Emails and PMs received. Is it always wrong?

[Bazle 1,500]

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

It seems that some people have not read/understood what was in the article I quoted so I will try to paraphrase it.

 

Who owns a letter once it has been sent?

 

An important distinction is that between a letter itself (i.e. a piece of paper) and the words written on that paper.

 

The ownership of the letter, as opposed to the words, is with the person it was sent to.

 

The words in the letters, however, remain the "property" of the author. He retains copyright in the same way that while you own the books on your shelf, the authors still own the words.

 

One defence for unauthorised publishing is "criticism, review and new reporting". This allows use of relevant sections of copyright material to be reprinted for comment on them. The test would be: would a fair-minded man consider a particular piece had been added for titillation, for example, rather than criticism and review?

[jacko 8,822]

I am not sure ownership is at question.

More the right to reproduce or make public.

 

If a person states that 'I received this PM from tahatshit,' there is no plagarism. Surely it is just quoting.

 

Joe might say 'hehe, that's good, I might use that'

 

No wonder lawyers make so much money over arguments.

[joekicker 53]

Joe might say 'hehe, that's good, I might use that'

 

Joe already has, several times. Bazle almost got it, but didn't. It's quite simply called "fair use". Lawyers make money because there's no definition of how MUCH is fair use. For a normal-type PM like we do here, it would be almost (almost) certain that today's copyright laws would allow quoting ALL of it for comment. But again, as said above, being permitted to quote and use the PM fairly is not connected to ownership, which only belongs to the sender unless he legally gives it up.

 

There's a lot more to a PM than copyright, though. Consider a not-hypothetical case. Man A sends a PM. Man B releases it, with comment. Man A sues B for releasing it because it was (part of) a (probably successful) attempt to libel/defame him.

 

But again, the reason not to release a personal/private message is because of ethics and morality, not legal. If it were a question of the law, I'd probably publish every PM I get, no downside, probably. But I don't want to be known as an untrustworthy person, mainly because I'm not untrustworthy.

 

.

[grayray44 49]

FELLAS.

forget all about copyright of PMS,am i the only that believes the posting of PMs sent to you, is less than honourable.

 

if you don't like someones PMs put a block on them, just fucking ignore them.

regards

grayray

[papillon 695]

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

 

If some cunt that I don't know decides to send me a death threat by PM I will make it public if I want to. There is absolutely no loss of honour or breach of trust. Fuck him.

 

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.

 

.

 

I would argue that if it is sent to me that we have equal rights regarding the content.. I can do as I wish with the information.

 

Unethical? Depends entirely on the circumstances.

Edited November 19, 2011 by papillon

[MM 6,562]

If some cunt that I don't know decides to send me a death threat by PM I will make it public if I want to. There is absolutely no loss of honour or breach of trust. Fuck him.

 

And this is one of those situations where I wouldn't consider the person who posted the "private" message to have violated any "trust".

[joekicker 53]

I would argue that if it is sent to me that we have equal rights regarding the content.. I can do as I wish with the information.

 

Argue to whom? There's no such thing. There's no legal argument, anywhere in the world. You never own what someone else has written unless he agrees to sell, barter or give it to you. And then YOU own it and he has none of your alleged "equal rights" either.

 

If some cunt that I don't know decides to send me a death threat by PM I will make it public if I want to. There is absolutely no loss of honour or breach of trust. Fuck him.

 

This is your strawman. I don't believe anyone has posted that those should be kept private, and almost everyone has specifically said they shouldn't.

 

But I'll see your cunt you don't know, and raise you. I'd make it public if I *did* know him.

 

.

Edited November 19, 2011 by joekicker

[MM 6,562]

This is your strawman. I don't believe anyone has posted that those should be kept private, and almost everyone has specifically said they shouldn't.

 

But I'll see your cunt you don't know, and raise you. I'd make it public if I *did* know him.

.

 

The way I see it, the whole ownership, permission and copyright issue is your strawman.

 

I think it's clear, or at least implied, that there are PMs that should be posted. I really thought it was obvious that we're not talking about some pillow talk between two BMs.

 

Further, my position is that I would not judge or criticize someone who did repost a PM under certain circumstances. Whether I or anyone in this thread would choose to do it themselves is neither here nor there.

Edited November 19, 2011 by MM
added Further

[joekicker 53]

The way I see it, the whole ownership, permission and copyright issue is your strawman.

 

No sir. That was raised in Post 3 in this thread:

 

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

 

And it's not a fact. Every time someone says it's a fact, I'll point out it's not. But I've said several times that is NOT the reason to keep most PMs private, most of the time -- which is ethical, not legal. Every time this "ownership" nonsense came up, I tried hard to steer it back to ethics, morality, trust, camaraderie and the like.

 

Further, my position is that I would not judge or criticize someone who did repost a PM under certain circumstances. Whether I or anyone in this thread would choose to do it themselves is neither here nor there.

 

And once again.... yes, it depends on the circumstances, and once again... no one has argued this point, that some PMs *should* or must be publicised. Threats, bragging about sex with kids, confessions of law-breaking -- those are a few. No one is arguing otherwise, which is why I told paps it was a strawman. Because it is, because no one disagrees.

 

But *in general* if a person posts without permission a standard PM of the kind most of us see, most of the time -- I would judge him for sure -- probably negatively, and probably not worthy of my trust on even really small matters.

 

.

[papillon 695]

Ok Joe, so now it's ok to make public SOME PMs.

 

Jeez

[MM 6,562]

Ok Joe, so now it's ok to make public SOME PMs.

 

Jeez

 

So, it seems, even with the issues of trust, ethics, copyright law and everything else, including the kitchen sink, it is not ALWAYS wrong, just as the thread title asked.

[joekicker 53]

So, it seems, even with the issues of trust, ethics, copyright law and everything else, including the kitchen sink, it is not ALWAYS wrong, just as the thread title asked.

 

Go back and read my FIRST post in this thread, which is the second post in the thread. I'll wait while you do that. Also Post 17, 20 posts ago.

 

 

Ok Joe, so now it's ok to make public SOME PMs.

 

Go back and read my FIRST post in this thread, which is the second post in the thread. I'll wait while you do that. While you're at it, might as well stop at Post 17, have a read of that as well, which is also on the first page and written before you even entered the thread.

 

.

Edited November 19, 2011 by joekicker

[grayray44 49]

If some cunt that I don't know decides to send me a death threat by PM I will make it public if I want to. There is absolutely no loss of honour or breach of trust. Fuck him.

 

 

 

I would argue that if it is sent to me that we have equal rights regarding the content.. I can do as I wish with the information.

 

Unethical? Depends entirely on the circumstances.

Paps.

i never thought about "death threats" personally a death threat to me would sail over me head,how many death threats in writing are carried out?i was thinking more along the lines of personal PMs etc etc like criticism of bar/owner/manager or information about BGs that sender would not post on a thread here or on other forums.

regards

grayray

[MM 6,562]

Go back and read my FIRST post in this thread, which is the second post in the thread. I'll wait while you do that. Also Post 17, 20 posts ago.

 

 

 

 

Go back and read my FIRST post in this thread, which is the second post in the thread. I'll wait while you do that. While you're at it, might as well stop at Post 17, have a read of that as well, which is also on the first page and written before you even entered the thread.

 

.

 

I read your second post (several times) and you agreed there were exceptions...

 

That's good enough for me.

 

The copyright law behind divulging a purportedly private message is irrelevant.

 

Would you agree with that?

 

Would you agree with anything anyone says on this subject?

[bigmick 840]

 

Would you agree with anything anyone says on this subject?

 

Probably not

[joekicker 53]

The copyright law behind divulging a purportedly private message is irrelevant.

 

Would you agree with that?

 

Yes. I even wrote that several times. It would hard to duck out of it now. It's ethics, social interaction, trust and the like.

 

Would you agree with anything anyone says on this subject?

 

Yes, I agree with *almost* everything. But I don't agree with everything. I don't agree in general with what I paraphrase as: "When I get a PM I'll decide whether to release it to the public".

 

I think it's the other way around: "I would never release a PM publicly without permission except under extremly extenuating and unusual circumstances. Your regular PMs are safe with me." It's a matter of emphasis but it's also a matter of ethical approach, i.e. "You can trust me until you PROVE to me that you can't be, and shouldn't be, trusted because your PMs show you are obviously dangerous" somehow or other.

 

.

[MM 6,562]

So, the consensus is, except for grayray, that it is not always wrong.

 

Q.E.D.

[papillon 695]

Paps.

i never thought about "death threats" personally a death threat to me would sail over me head,how many death threats in writing are carried out?i was thinking more along the lines of personal PMs etc etc like criticism of bar/owner/manager or information about BGs that sender would not post on a thread here or on other forums.

regards

grayray

 

I'm pretty sure this thread was started as a result of........

 

http://www.pattayata...post__p__924475

 

I wouldn't make public any type of correspondance from a friend or Family Member, etc.

Edited November 20, 2011 by papillon

[sinbinjack 251]

Send an unsolicited email and its fair game,send an email to a mate or even a work colleague in the general run of things, and its not.There is a line you should not cross ,and if you don't know where that line lies I hope I never send you an email .

[Gary 4,119]

Legalities have nothing to do with it. If I send a PM, it's because I didn't want to post it on the open board for whatever reason. If the person I sent it to posts it, I would consider it a broken trust.

 

The exception would be that if it involves the recipient and it may have personal details about them, I would note that and if they want to post it, it would be up to them.