bjornmu@idt.unit.no (Bj|rn Munch) (01/10/90)
In article <1976@texsun.Central.Sun.COM>, lupe@alanya.Sun.COM (Lupe Christoph Sun Germany Consulting) writes: > > This brings up another thought: assume, somebody stupid or malicious > enough *would* send such a thing. Wouldn't be any site forwarding it > guilty of assitisting in piracy ? Should everybody running news and/or > mail forwarding check every message for illegal activity ? > Don't be silly. Of course, forwarders can't possibly be resposible for the contents of the mail/news they are forwarding. They aren't capable of scanning all the news, and they *shouldn't* read the mail. If a pirate copy was sent by physical mail, would the post man be guilty of a crime? What about the pilot of an airplane in which a passenger is smuggling narcotics? They are both in the same posistion: they are just being used without their knowing it. Can you imagine lots of people reading thorugh *all* ~10 MB of news and all personal mail each day and decide what they don't want to forward? This cencorship would be a much more serious crime. Except for the fact that it would be practically impossible... Bj|rn Munch ("The Man With a Pipe in His Name") bjornmu@idt.unit.no ===========
cmcmanis@stpeter.Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) (01/13/90)
In article <1976@texsun.Central.Sun.COM>, (Lupe Christoph) writes: -> This brings up another thought: assume, somebody stupid or malicious -> enough *would* send such a thing. Wouldn't be any site forwarding it -> guilty of assitisting in piracy ? Should everybody running news and/or -> mail forwarding check every message for illegal activity ? In article <1990Jan9.192926.26965@idt.unit.no> (Bj|rn Munch) writes: -> Don't be silly. Of course, forwarders can't possibly be resposible -> for the contents of the mail/news they are forwarding. They aren't -> capable of scanning all the news, and they *shouldn't* read the mail. BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT! I'm sorry that answer is incorrect in the United States. -> If a pirate copy was sent by physical mail, would the post man be -> guilty of a crime? What about the pilot of an airplane in which a -> passenger is smuggling narcotics? They are both in the same -> posistion: they are just being used without their knowing it. And this is why, in the US at least, special status is granted to corporations that contribute to public communications, they are called "Common Carriers." The benefit of being a Common Carrier is that you are not responsible for any damages done (civil or criminal) by a subscriber to your service if you take basic precautions (follow up on complaints etc.) The down side is that you automatically come under the regulatory powers of the Public Utility Commission. Usenet, is *NOT* a Common Carrier, and thus it is entirely possible for sites that forward mail and news to get sued. Kinda makes you wonder how it can even exist at all in this lawsuit happy country .... --Chuck McManis uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis BIX: cmcmanis ARPAnet: cmcmanis@Eng.Sun.COM These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you. "If it didn't have bones in it, it wouldn't be crunchy now would it?!"