2 ms·

> A protocol is neither legal not illegal. My point is that when you send someone something you've written as an email, it constitutes an informal agreement (e

> A protocol is neither legal not illegal. My point is that when you send someone something you've written as an email, it constitutes an informal agreement (essentially a private contract) with the recipient. > It's also not a necessary condition because an internal company mail server wouldn't run into copyright issues since the company owns the copyright on all their employees' work. That's true, but anyone with a company email address is legally considered a representative of the company. (That's why you always need to deactivate people's email addresses when they leave.) So while the company (almost) always owns the copyright over work created, the employee is able to dual license that content by sending it via email. Anyway just to be clear we're not saying you should go ahead and dox all your friends. We're not ad supported, that doesn't benefit us at all. (If your first experience with the site is getting doxxed, you're probably not going to sign up, and almost certainly aren't going to start paying for the business product.)

Spivak 8y ago
> it constitutes an informal agreement (essentially a private contract) with the recipient. Is there any precedent you're basing this opinion on? Because it's not like your company just gets to decide this. What are the terms of this supposed contract? If JK Rowling sent you the text of Harry Potter do you believe you have the right to distribute it through your site? Do you believe that there would be a meaningful difference between Netflix sending you the same bits over email vs HTTP?
- Alex3917 8y ago
  > Is there any precedent you're basing this opinion on? There's no clear precedent. Clearly a judge isn't going to let us host a PDF of Harry Potter or whatever. If it ever came down to it I think there would just be a multi-pronged test, along the lines of the current test for fair use and securities law. In the case of Harry Potter it's an exogenous work that was created and copyrighted outside of an email client, it has significant economic value on its own, and there would be substantial economic harm done from us hosting it. In the case of normal email conversations most of those factors wouldn't apply, especially since in many cases seeing how people interact with one another is more valuable that the content of any individual message. Regardless, I paid my $6 to the library of congress to become a registered DMCA agent, so the copyright issue really doesn't apply unless we A) start ignoring DMCA takedown requests B) actively induce people to violate copyright.
jonathankoren 8y ago
You really, really, really need to get a lawyer, because this sounds like you're just spitballing here.
wsy 8y ago
Granted that sending an email implies an informal agreement. But this agreement has to be thought of as giving exactly the rights needed to facilitate the email communication, and nothing more. That means: - copyright is still with the sender (or their employer) - no rights to publish the message. The users of your service will regularly violate copyrights if they didn't get explicit permission to publish.

Spivak 8y ago

> it constitutes an informal agreement (essentially a private contract) with the recipient. Is there any precedent you're basing this opinion on? Because it's not like your company just gets to decide this. What are the terms of this supposed contract? If JK Rowling sent you the text of Harry Potter do you believe you have the right to distribute it through your site? Do you believe that there would be a meaningful difference between Netflix sending you the same bits over email vs HTTP?

Alex3917 8y ago
> Is there any precedent you're basing this opinion on? There's no clear precedent. Clearly a judge isn't going to let us host a PDF of Harry Potter or whatever. If it ever came down to it I think there would just be a multi-pronged test, along the lines of the current test for fair use and securities law. In the case of Harry Potter it's an exogenous work that was created and copyrighted outside of an email client, it has significant economic value on its own, and there would be substantial economic harm done from us hosting it. In the case of normal email conversations most of those factors wouldn't apply, especially since in many cases seeing how people interact with one another is more valuable that the content of any individual message. Regardless, I paid my $6 to the library of congress to become a registered DMCA agent, so the copyright issue really doesn't apply unless we A) start ignoring DMCA takedown requests B) actively induce people to violate copyright.

jonathankoren 8y ago

You really, really, really need to get a lawyer, because this sounds like you're just spitballing here.

wsy 8y ago

Granted that sending an email implies an informal agreement. But this agreement has to be thought of as giving exactly the rights needed to facilitate the email communication, and nothing more. That means: - copyright is still with the sender (or their employer) - no rights to publish the message. The users of your service will regularly violate copyrights if they didn't get explicit permission to publish.