lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein) (02/05/85)
Actually, my main concern with net.sources revolves around verifying that the poster has the legal right to post the sources involved. The potential for copyright damage is very high in a source distribution situation, even on the existing Usenet. I haven't figured out any sure-fire solution to this problem yet. --Lauren--
john@chalmers.UUCP (John Hughes) (02/06/85)
There's a potential problem in monitoring newsgroups such as net.sources that I haven't seen pointed out. First, a question: If a program transmitted via Stargate prints an obscene or libellous message when it is run (or perhaps just on a particular date), is the carrier/monitor/whoever legally liable? If so, I can't see any way of preventing this happening short of not transmitting programs. Reading a 500K program just to check there's nothing libellous in the COMMENTS would be bad enough. I doubt if a monitor would notice an obscene message disguised by as simple a subterfuge as writing the ASCII codes instead of a character string, and we can all think of far, far more obscure disguises than that. I don't believe there's any way to detect such things before the evil deed is done. John Hughes, Chalmers University, Gothenburg. john%chalmers%ykxa@ucl-cs
eager@amd.UUCP (Mike Eager) (02/09/85)
> If a program transmitted via Stargate prints an obscene or libellous > message when it is run (or perhaps just on a particular date), is the > carrier/monitor/whoever legally liable? There are laws on the books which are applied to film processing. It is against the law to send obscene material thru the mail. [Definitions shift randomly depending on political situation.] If a film processor realizes that it has received and processed film which it believes to be obscene, they will refuse to return the processed film thru the mail. Sometimes they will send a letter indicating that the film may be picked up in person. Other times, they will [self-righteously] destroy the film, notifying the owner. It seems reasonable that the intent would be used to determine if someone is liable. If a program generates an obscenity, to hold a carrier/monitor/etc. liable would seem to require that they knew that it was obscene or that they failed to take "reasonable" precautions to avoid transmitting obscenity. One does not have to take extraordinary precautions. -- Mike Eager