Spam: Re: [way off-topic] legal disclaimers [Was: Re: Using Red hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) at home]

[Deron Meranda]

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 13:37:41 -0600, Aleksandar Milivojevic
<amilivojevic at pbl.ca> wrote:
> David Cary Hart wrote:
> > Yes when privilege is bona fide and LIMITED. Privilege is neither bona
> > fide nor limited when a message is posted in a publicly accessible mail
> > list.
> 
> I don't see why (if you tell me something in good faith) it would be
> legally bonding for me not to pass the information out (unless there's...


I don't think there is any legal binding on the recipient, in most
jurisdictions anyway, UNLESS there was some pre-existing
contract or other legal instrument in addition to the disclaimer.

This might include communications that would be covered under
contract, NDAs, copyright law, trade secret law, court order, etc.
But then the disclaimer is really redundant and unnecessary.
Disclaimers can legitimately provide information, including such
things as saying that the contents *may* be illegal to distrubute
(e.g., cyprotgraphy).

Unless there is some other legal force in play in addition to just
the disclaimer, a disclaimer has no authority.  And even then the
disclaimer is really just informational.  All a disclaimer can do is
*suggest* or *warn*....or the more typical, *annoy*.

Perhaps this is a topic best discussed on GrokLaw or EFF someplace
like it -- http://groklaw.net/

(Note I'm not a lawyer; especially in *your* country)
-- 
Deron Meranda