Re: We are ALL guests (except Eric)

["Perry E. Metzger" <perry@imsi.com>]

"L. Todd Masco" says:
> 
> Perry E. Metzger writes:
>  > 
>  > "L. Todd Masco" says:
>  > > 
>  > > Perry E. Metzger writes:
>  > >  > Eric can turn the list on and off at will. By my lights, that gives
>  > >  > him control, and thus a proprietary interest, i.e. the list is his
>  > >  > property.
>  > > 
>  > > I can forge a flurry of unsubscribe requests (turn the list off) and 
>  > > set up the same list on another host (turn it on) at will.
>  > 
>  > I can steal your car or buy one of my own. Does that make your car not
>  > your property?
> 
> I don't think so -- but by the argument you gave (above), it does.  Ergo, 
> your argument strikes me as insufficient.

Pardon.

Eric has more or less total control over the mailing list. The control
is imperfect -- I could, for instance, blow up the machine.

You claim this imperfection is reason to consider it to be "community
property" or some such. You also noted that you could create another
list and somehow claimed that this reduced Eric's proprietary interest
in the list.

As I noted, were your argument correct, then your car would not be
your property because it, too, is not perfectly within your control
and others may duplicate it.

In any case, given that Eric can simply kick anyone off the list or
add anyone on that he likes at will, you are free to refer to the list
as a commune, an empire, or a supreme overlordship with yourself as
supreme overlord. The fact remains that Eric can implement any change
he has unilaterally. If you don't like the term "property" call it
"gazorknoplant" instead. The word is not what matters. The point is
that your opinion can influence him but that ultimately the decisions
are all his, just as with your car, which is also your gazorknoplant
just as the list is Eric's gazorknoplant.

Perry