full-disclosure - Re: Email Disclaimers...Legally Liable if breached?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 23:29:24 +0000
From: Ray P <sixsigma98@...mail.com>
To: Troy <gimmespam@...il.com>, <full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk>
Subject: Re: Email Disclaimers...Legally Liable
	if	breached?

There is a good reason. There are two types of copyrights in the US: implicit and registered. For a long time now, a work receives an implicit copyright at the instant it is created. If someone violates an implicit copyright, the owner's only legal recourse is to go to court and get an order to stop the infringing use. Zero dollar damages.

If the work is registered by filing a copy with government on the appropriate form (TX?) and a fee, then the legal recourse includes the ability to get money in damages.

The copyright fee used to be $20 per. Imagine if you couldn't send an email until the contents had been filed, fee paid and a registration document received. Not only would email get really expensive, it wouldn't be very timely. :-)

Ray

Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 22:44:08 -0700
From: gimmespam@...il.com
To: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Email Disclaimers...Legally Liable if	breached?

On 10/10/07, Ray P <sixsigma98@...mail.com> wrote:

Would the _intended_ recipient have a case against the sender for contractual failure to protect confidential information (or whatever) if the _un_intended recipient posts it somewhere or otherwise discloses its contents?

I'm surprised we don't see more disclaimers with a copyright statement in them. I would think that using copyright law as an argument against unauthorized distribution of an email would stand a better chance in court than a non-binding disclaimer at the bottom of the message.

_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live Hotmail and Microsoft Office Outlook – together at last.  Get it now.
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/outlook/HA102225181033.aspx?pid=CL100626971033
Content of type "text/html" skipped

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/