dns interceptors [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu
Sat Feb 13 22:01:40 CST 2010


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 benefit
of those googling and reading the thread in the list archives in the future,
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 otherwise,
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 "sale." The doctrine applies after the "first authorized disposition by
12 which title passes." 2 Nimmer § 8.12[B][1][a]. This passing of title may occur through a transfer
13 by gift. See 4 William F. Patry, Patry on Copyright § 13:15 ("Since the principle [of the first sale
14 doctrine] applies when copies are given away or are otherwise permanently transferred without
15 the accoutrements of a sale, 'exhaustion' is the better description."); 2 Paul Goldstein, Goldstein
16 on Copyright § 7.6.1 n.4 (3d ed.) ("[A] gift of copies or phonorecords will qualify as a 'first sale' to
17 the same extent as an actual sale for consideration.").

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).  
> Apparently Bonomi thinks he has a "legal right" not to get responses to
> his emails on public lists, and that he can imply that "legal right" to
> prevent others from responding to his nonsense.

You're actually probably right, and his notice is likely not legally binding.
But you know Dean - if you feel that you have to raise the point whether
there's any legal validity to a "Dear Dean: Please don't email me. Ever",
that's saying something.  And the world would be a much better place if you
ever figure out what that something is.

> Many organizations (particularly law firms) have similar declarations of
> 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 has 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 censured.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 227 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20100213/e6adaf12/attachment.bin>


More information about the NANOG mailing list