[122400] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: dns interceptors [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Sat Feb 13 23:02:53 2010
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 13 Feb 2010 17:53:19 EST."
<Pine.LNX.4.44.1002131726240.20568-100000@citation2.av8.net>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 23:01:40 -0500
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--==_Exmh_1266120100_4108P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 17:53:19 EST, Dean Anderson said:
(One of these days, somebody will find a way to correct things for the be=
nefit
of those googling and reading the thread in the list archives in the futu=
re,
without feeding the trolls)
> Robert Bonomi appears to have no valid premise of first sale because
> there was no sale, so its seems impossible to invoke anything from the
> so-called doctrine of first sale.
The federal district court ruling in UMG Recordings v. Augusto held other=
wise,
when they ruled that first sale applied to promotional recordings sent to=
DJs
for free and stamped 'Not for resale'. It held that they were gifts, and=
first sale has long applied to gifts as well as sales:
10 Although this statutory limitation is commonly referred to as =
the first sale doctrine, its
11 protection does not require a =22sale.=22 The doctrine applies after t=
he =22first authorized disposition by
12 which title passes.=22 2 Nimmer =A7 8.12=5BB=5D=5B1=5D=5Ba=5D. This pa=
ssing of title may occur through a transfer
13 by gift. See 4 William F. Patry, Patry on Copyright =A7 13:15 (=22Sinc=
e the principle =5Bof the first sale
14 doctrine=5D applies when copies are given away or are otherwise perman=
ently transferred without
15 the accoutrements of a sale, 'exhaustion' is the better description.=
=22); 2 Paul Goldstein, Goldstein
16 on Copyright =A7 7.6.1 n.4 (3d ed.) (=22=5BA=5D gift of copies or phon=
orecords will qualify as a 'first sale' to
17 the same extent as an actual sale for consideration.=22).
http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/umg_v_augusto/LA07CV03106SJO-O.pdf
So a sale is obviously not required.
> But this is the same Bonomi who sent the following email (below). =20
> Apparently Bonomi thinks he has a =22legal right=22 not to get response=
s to
> his emails on public lists, and that he can imply that =22legal right=
=22 to
> prevent others from responding to his nonsense.
You're actually probably right, and his notice is likely not legally bind=
ing.
But you know Dean - if you feel that you have to raise the point whether
there's any legal validity to a =22Dear Dean: Please don't email me. Ever=
=22,
that's saying something. And the world would be a much better place if y=
ou
ever figure out what that something is.
> Many organizations (particularly law firms) have similar declarations o=
f
> ownership of the content automatically attached by the mailserver. I'm
> sure he has seen such declarations before.
The fact that lots of people do it doesn't imply it has validity (as you
hopefully realize yourself, when you question if Robert Bonomi's notice h=
as any
legal standing). Law firms in particular have a long history of making as=
many
far-reaching claims as they think they can get away without getting censu=
red.
--==_Exmh_1266120100_4108P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFLd3WkcC3lWbTT17ARAgqZAKCDEp/zo0fhnXhB7wBhQZi4hHyHiwCfcpe8
Fh0VLaoFr0bCALH0GZqchoE=
=97JL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1266120100_4108P--
