From owner-nanog@merit.edu Fri Aug 20 10:07:59 2004 Cc: Patrick W Gilmore <patrick@ianai.net> From: Patrick W Gilmore <patrick@ianai.net> Subject: Re: "scanning" e-mail [WAS: 3 Free Gmail invites] Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 10:34:31 -0400 To: nanog@merit.edu

On Aug 20, 2004, at 9:25 AM, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:

...

i got told otherwise, but again this hasnt been tested in a court by me. i forget the exact detail in the conversation but it was comparing the disclaimer to what you get in regular mail.. so things like confidentiality, opening an attachment meaning you agree to things are allegedly okay.

Maybe the UK is different than the US. But if I get something addressed to me in the mail (dunno about it if it was addressed to someone else and accidentally delivered), it is MINE. Period. If I did not order it, too damned bad, I get to keep it, it's a gift.

U.S. law is similar, for _unsolicited_ materials. 'Mis-delivered' materials, must be returned to the Postal Service, -unopened-, for proper delivery. (It is a _crime_ to open such mail). However, even if you do own the 'thing' that was mailed to you, you still must respect the IP rights of the copyright owner of any such material in that 'thing'. Ownership of the 'physical artifact' does not include copyright control.

Bringing this back on topic, IFF that can be extended to e-mail (and my understanding is that it can), the disclaimer is worthless - at least the part about having to delete it.

Yup. Totally worthless. It is the realm of 'contract law', which, among other things requires a 'meeting of the minds' before any contract can be formed.

There is some question about whether I can post it publicly (as you saw earlier), and I don't have the motivation to test it in court, but I certainly feel perfectly comfortable reading the contents of the e-mail and any attachments, and doing whatever I like with the information, baring limitations set by any previous agreements (e.g. NDAs).

Copyright is retained by the sender. Aside from copyright issues, you are free to do whatever you like with the message, any 'disclaimers' not withstanding.

Would anyone care to correct me on this? IANAL, and don't even play one on TV. :-)

Not much that needs correcting. <grin>

...

as you say tho this cannot be extended to some things such as by reading this you owe me $1m etc but the reasonable and logical bits are allegedly enforceable to some degree

Kelvin or Rankine? <grin> The ones that say 'if you are not the person to whom this message was addressed' may have a chance of being upheld. How good that chance is is *very* dependant on circumstances. The ones that say 'if you are not the persom for whom this message was _intended_' have no chance of prevaling on _that_ basis.