Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law writes: > If you post to a list with a publicly announced public archive -- and even > more so if you are informed about the archive at the time you join the > list (hint: you usually are) -- then I think it's pretty clear under US > law (and, I'd imagine but don't actually know, also the law of most > civilized countries) that you are impliedly granting a license to archive > by posting to the list. Hence the archive is not a copyright violation. The key phrase here is "you are informed." You have to be informed and agree to it. Forcing someone to click on a button that acknowledges reading about the archive is a way to do this (commonly used for software and various Web sites). Just assuming that someone has read fine print somewhere on some Web page associated with the list is not sufficient, however. > Interesting academic questions might, or might not, arise if in a given > post one attempted to assert that the implied license is being revoked for > that post (including the issue of whether given the automation > involved such an assertion could be legally effective), but they have low > operational relevance to date. Well, that would depend on the agreement, wouldn't it? Which is all the more reason to compel a participant to read about archiving permission and agree to it explicitly in some way. There are more egregious infringements on the Net, such as Turn It In. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf