Rodger Whitlock wrote:
On Fri, 20 May 2005 10:51:14 +0100, Janet Baraclough
wrote:
[...]
Those who object to having their posts censored/edited
without their knowledge or consent, can avoid it by marking them
x-no-archive.

If they're editing, then they're probably contravening the authors'
inherent copyright.

That's really interesting. Certainly it's possible to alter a message
one's quoting in such a way as to misrepresent the author's meaning;
but I'd argue that the original text will always be traceable,
_except_ when the author's marked it for non-archiving. So perhaps,
if you don't want your messages tinkered with irreparably, you
_should_ always commit them to the archive. Without that, nobody can
ever know what you really said.

I suspect that copyright doesn't apply to quotation of messages in
this medium for the purpose of reply and comment. If I take huge
chunks out of somebody's text published elsewhere without
authorisation, though, it's a violation just as it would be in print.
I'm inclined to think that "published elsewhere" may include messages
from a separate newsgroup: there must have been some cases in
American courts!

On editing without the author's consent, I reckon it's allowed, since
editing quoted matter is established custom and practice, and
manifestly the medium wouldn't work without it. But editing so as to
misrepresent the meaning, or without indicating that it's taken
place, looks like a tort if it can be shown to be damaging.

--
Mike.