gnu@sun.uucp (John Gilmore) (01/30/85)
I'm surprised it hasn't been mentioned here yet. I saw the legal opinion on Stargate that was published in the last issue of the Usenix [hardcopy] newsletter. The conclusion on all fronts was that the more moderation we do, the more legally liable we will be, because that makes us look like a publication (which shares responsibility for published material) rather than a common carrier (which just moves whatever you want moved).
lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein) (01/31/85)
Of course, moderation may entail more legal liabilities than non-moderation. However, note that non-moderation isn't free and clear either. For example, a non-moderated scheme would require solid user authentication (and possibly signed documents from each submitter) so that responsibility could be assigned back to the person who posted the message. You cannot just set up an "open" conduit that allows people to anonymously post libelous, copyrighted, or other such materials without having the responsibility fall back upon the organization operating the service. The same lawyer who wrote the ;login piece mentioned this to me at a meeting at Usenix. There are laws regarding "irresponsible" behavior in providing such unauthenticated and unmoderated conduits. Also, in limited bandwidth situations (such as Stargate, which isn't infinite) you have to make SOME resource allocation decisions. If you're not going to make them based on content (stripping repetitious material at the VERY least), you are forced to do input allocation based on money or fixed per-person quotas. I don't like either of these latter two mechanisms since I don't think they'd result in a fair system. However, what is actually more important, is that there is nothing so terrible about an organization accepting legal liability for something, so long as they understand the liabilities beforehand. Every radio or TV station, magazine or newsletter, accepts liability for what they choose to broadcast and/or print. That's the price they pay for providing quality in most cases, rather than a ever-growing and uncontrolled mass of garbage with a few gems showing up at rarer and rarer intervals. The Usenix board seems to be viewing the lawyer's paper as a discussion of "worst case" scenaries. They have explicitly stated that the existence of legal liabilities is not the primary factor--they accept similar liabilities when they publish ;login. The real issues, of course, involving content and organization of such an operation will not be settled overnight. There is a tremendous amount of discussion that will have to take place over the next few months. --Lauren--
phil@amd.UUCP (Phil Ngai) (02/03/85)
> I'm surprised it hasn't been mentioned here yet. I saw the legal > opinion on Stargate that was published in the last issue of the Usenix > [hardcopy] newsletter. The conclusion on all fronts was that the more > moderation we do, the more legally liable we will be, because that > makes us look like a publication (which shares responsibility for > published material) rather than a common carrier (which just moves > whatever you want moved). Seeing as how an individual running a BBS was harassed for unknowingly having credit card numbers on his board, I don't see that stargate should rely on being classified as a common carrier. I've always thought of a common carrier as being a point to point service, which stargate certainly isn't. -- This may not even represent my opinion, much less AMD's. Phil Ngai (408) 749-5720 UUCP: {decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil ARPA: amdcad!phil@decwrl.ARPA
msc@qubix.UUCP (Mark Callow) (02/07/85)
> > ..the legal opinion in the usenix newsletter. The conclusion on all > > fronts was that the more moderation we do, the more legally liable we > > will be, because that makes us look like a publication rather than a > > common carrier. > > I've always thought of a common carrier as being a point to point service, > which stargate certainly isn't. > -- I find the common carrier argument more persuasive than the publication and moderation argument. A new analogy can be made with the phone company's talkline services where you dial a number and end up in a group conversation. Clearly the same abuses that the satellite people are worried about could happen on a talkline. I am sure the phone company lawyers have researched things carefully and they are confident that they will not be held liable if, for example, one party in a group conversation libels someone. I have yet to make up my mind on this issue. One thing that strikes me about the arguments for moderation is the sheer reasonableness of what is proposed. This strikes a warning note. You take a few reasonable steps, then a few more, and suddenly you find yourself in trouble. Nobody can oppress the people like the people themselves. -- From the TARDIS of Mark Callow msc@qubix.UUCP, qubix!msc@decwrl.ARPA ...{decvax,ucbvax}!decwrl!qubix!msc, ...{amd,ihnp4,ittvax}!qubix!msc