X-Mailer: //\\miga Electronic Mail (AmiElm 1.13)
Organization: Fantasy Farm
Newsgroups: rec.video.satellite
Date:         Tue, 17 Nov 1992 00:22:55 -0600
From:         Bernie Cosell <cosell@BBN.COM>
Subject: Re: Permission to repost? (was Re: S-VHS connections)

On Nov 13, Bill Jones wrote:

} > In the past, Bob Hoffman sent me an explanation about the signal conversion
} > process.  With your permission Bob (if you're reading this), I could post
 it.
} >
} >
} This is completely off the subject of the post, but this is somthing
} that has confused me about "net etiquette".  Why is it that everyone
} feels obliged to get permission to re-post an E-mail message?  I
} could understand it if the writer started it with "for your eyes only",
} or something like that, but otherwise it seems to me that if someone
} sends me a message, that the message is now mine to do with what I want,
} provided that the original writer is given credit for any original
} ideas....

You're right, this is wildly off the subject of the post and beyond
the scope of this mailinglist/newsgroup, but ...   Beyond simple
manners [in general, it is considered impolite to divulge a private
communication of any type to a third party --- do you record your
phone conversations and mail tapes of them around?], the usual
analogy is to written communications.  With the rough parallel
being email message to you --> personal letter mailed to you;
posting to a bboard or mailing list --> printing the letter in some
public forum, the situation is fairly clear: in written
communications, the *writer* retains copyrights to a letter, and it
is quite improper [and illegal] to "publish" the contents of a
letter not authored by you.  Now analogies between usenet/mailinglists
and actual on-paper documents are a bit strained at times, but in
general erring on the side of courtesy seems like the prudent thing
to do [and, indeed, as you observe it is where usenet etiquette has
drifted to].

Put more bluntly [if you don't buy the analogy]: as a social
phenomenon, private email [i.e., email addressed specifically to
you, and not to a public forum] could have gone either way:
presumed public info unless disclaimed, or presumed private
communication unless allowed.  In its somewhat anarchic way, email
has drifted to the 'presumed private' because *most* people have
wanted it that way over the years, rather than having to tag 99+%
of your email with "please don't forward this on without asking".
That is, the answer is "that's just the way it is with email".

} It is not necessary to get permission to include a non exact
} exerpt of the ideas in a book or other work in a publication, it is only
} necessary to properly reference the source of the info, and a letter
} should be even less restrictive since it isn't copywrited.

Wrong: a *letter* **IS** copyrighted, and the copyright is explicitly
retained by the writer of the letter unless other arrangements are made.
[this was most clearly established in a fairly notorious court case where
someone was going to publish a book of the collected letters of J.D.
Salinger, who is a bit of a recluse [to say the least].  He objected and
took the compiler to court and *won*.]


} ... but I can't understand why anyone would object, unless there
} was something personal in the letter or unless there were embarassing
} mistakes in the content (this has happened to me).

You must be fairly new to email: matters of style, tone, back
references, etc, etc vary quite a lot from an in-context personal
message to a message, perhaps covering the same content, that is
destined for hundreds of mostly anonymous recipients.  With a
personally addressed message, the author can assume some
context/history between the parties, and moreover since the
distribution is explicitly limited has an opportunity to clarify
badly worded statements, etc.  By contrast, on messages destined
for wide distribution to unknown recipients, *LOTS* more care has
to be taken.  You have to assume the worst about the audience
[e.g., an angry statement will appear to be *wildly* attacking to
at least _some_ of the recipients.  A slightly fuzzily-expressed
idea will for-sure be maximally misinterpreted by _some_ of the
recipients.  Clarity and _very_ moderate tone are the watchwords
for general-distribution.  [NB: these are good watchwords for ALL
email, but errors are relatively easy to deal with if you are
communication one-to-one, but it can be a real mess if the message
leaks out to hundreds of folk].

Note also, relevant to your very statement: shouldn't it be the
*author's* prerogative to decide if there is something potentially
embarrassing in a previous-private email message?

/bernie\
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU