Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
"Peter" == Peter William Lount peter@smalltalk.org writes:
Peter> Nonsense, it's valid fair use. Learn copyright law.
Nonsense, there's caselaw that says that letters sent from person A to B were owned by A, because B wanted to publish them when A became famous.
I forget the specifics, but it's been decided.
That is why I said *arguable*. I don't think anyone's argued the email case, but the physical mail case has precedent.
Don't wave "fair use" so broadly. It really isn't that broad.
Note: the subject heading was "Re: Fear and loathing of the "perification" of Smalltalk".
Hi,
Fair use applies in this situation.
There are also other laws other than copyright to consider. In British Columbia, where I am located, a party to a conversation may make it public if it's in defense of their person as my posting clearly was. End of story.
Also I didn't retaliate with any personal attack. I simply stated the facts of what was said and asked the person to stop their attacks, which seems to have occurred as the subsequent email-posting exchange shows. Furthermore, out of a desire to have positive conversions subsequently follow, I provided suggestions of how to ask appropriate questions rather than initiate ad hominem attacks.
I suppose that you support ad hominem attacks upon the person even if they are sent privately to attempt to influence, "bully" or "inflame" someone's behavior in a negative way with false accusations?
How would you have handled it in a way that would positively influence the person's initiating the ad hominem person attack?
All the best,
Peter William Lount peter@smalltalk.org