chip@ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) (11/21/89)
A long time ago, I wrote: >As long as Usenet does not exist legally as a single >entity, it cannot be attacked by legal means. According to chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach): >Chip: Are you a lawyer? Have you run this past a lawyer? Yes. This article consists of my notes of a conversation with our company lawyer. It does not constitute an Official Legal Opinion, and it probably applies only to U.S. sites. Let the reader beware. Etc. 1. Suits are expensive. Sue someone, and you can expect to pay $10,000 in legal fees. Thus, any kind of legal action is often waylaid at the pocketbook. A person or company would have to be highly motivated to drop that kind of money on a suit, especially considering: 2. Any libel or copyright infringment suit would have to prove authorship. Given the insecure nature of UUCP and NNTP, such proof is impossible. That's right, impossible. So unless you are foolish enough to claim in writing or in person that you authored a controversial article, you probably cannot be sued successfully. And if you do claim such a thing, it's not really your Usenet article that got you in trouble. 3. In matters of libel, truth is always an absolute defense. 4. Posting to Usenet consititutes publication. However, the legal term "publication" just means that a third party is informed. It need not involve print. Nevertheless, risks are low. Remember point #2: you cannot prove who published what. 5. Sites that carry a newsgroup would probably be in a situation similar to supermarkets that carry the National Enquirer. The Enquirer losing a hypothetical libel suit doesn't make the supermarkets who carry it liable. Of course, this is only one possible interpretation. 6. The less policy a company has about Usenet, the more protected it is from possible legal attack. 7. A hypothetical Usenet Inc. would be a suit magnet. As I mentioned above, these opinions should not be construed as Legal Opinion in fancy script. However, they come from a member of the Illinois bar, so they're not just lay speculation either. -- You may redistribute this article only to those who may freely do likewise. Chip Salzenberg at A T Engineering; <chip@ateng.com> or <uunet!ateng!chip> "Did I ever tell you the Jim Gladding story about the binoculars?"
wcn@max.u.washington.edu (W C Newell Jr) (11/21/89)
In article <25683CAB.25106@ateng.com>, chip@ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes: > A long time ago, I wrote: >>As long as Usenet does not exist legally as a single >>entity, it cannot be attacked by legal means. And I'll say it again: it >can< be attacked, because corporate entities already exist to manage the major components of the Internet, never mind the fact that major institutions, such as this University, are now active participants. > This article consists of my notes of a conversation with our company lawyer. I am not a lawyer, but the following summarizes what my lawyer-type friends have said to me on this subject, with emphasis on how it differs from the legal opinions you cite. > 1. Suits are expensive. Sue someone, and you can expect to pay $10,000 > in legal fees. Thus, any kind of legal action is often waylaid at the > pocketbook. It goes without saying that an attorney must believe your case has merit before he/she will agree to take it on. Some will accept libel cases based on a percentage of the award, if any. The first big Internet libel case will probably work like this, with a lot of attendant media publicity. > 2. Any libel or copyright infringment suit would have to prove > authorship. Given the insecure nature of UUCP and NNTP, such proof is > impossible. That's right, impossible. So unless you are foolish > enough to claim in writing or in person that you authored a > controversial article, you probably cannot be sued successfully. And > if you do claim such a thing, it's not really your Usenet article that > got you in trouble. It is not clear whether a newsgroup is to be considered a "publishing medium" in the legal sense. If we assume for the sake of argument that it is, then the offended party can sue the institution, as the article's publisher, rather than the alleged author. Transport level security holes aside, it's still possible to prove distribution, so this University, for example, could be held liable. Furthermore, an individual can't wait until a libel suit goes to trial before shouting "forgery". A bogus article must be disclaimed at first opportunity, otherwise authorship may be implicitly assumed. > 3. In matters of libel, truth is always an absolute defense. The corrolary to this is that if a person's good name and reputation is ruined by false statements in a Usenet article, then >someone< is liable. The courts will not bless the computer networks as being above the law and able to get away with things that defy common sense, just because the technology is new. > 4. Posting to Usenet consititutes publication. Same as item 2. > 5. Sites that carry a newsgroup would probably be in a situation similar > to supermarkets that carry the National Enquirer. The Enquirer losing > a hypothetical libel suit doesn't make the supermarkets who carry it > liable. Of course, this is only one possible interpretation. You got this analogy from a lawyer? The supermarket has no role in reviewing the contents of the Enquirer; the magazine's publisher is clearly identified on the editorial page (as required by law). The sites have a major role in reviewing and filtering newsgroup content, and assume status of co-publisher by default. > 6. The less policy a company has about Usenet, the more protected it is > from possible legal attack. The correct legal term escapes me, but there exists the concept of "marketplace consensus". If your company does not have a policy, the court may assume that you implicitly abide by the policies of other sites, if a consensus exists. If the federal government has a policy, then that's the consensus. In the absence of a consensus, the court's actions are unpredictable. > 7. A hypothetical Usenet Inc. would be a suit magnet. Maybe, but it would shield the individual sites from liability. An umbrella organization can benefit from economies of scale when budgeting legal costs. Of course, if you believe no one will ever be sued over a Usenet article, then this is a moot point. Disclaimer reprise: I am not a lawyer. Bill Newell Systems Analyst, Applications Consulting Group University of Washington WCN@MAX.U.WASHINGTON.EDU
eli@spdcc.COM (Steve Elias) (11/21/89)
wcn@max.u.washington.edu (W C Newell Jr) writes: >he/she will agree to take it on. Some will accept libel cases based on a >percentage of the award, if any. The first big Internet libel case will >probably work like this, with a lot of attendant media publicity. a lawyer tells me that libel must be spoken, and that slander is written. so shouldn't you be saying "slander case"? >Of course, if you believe no one will ever be sued over a Usenet article, then >this is a moot point. i hope that nobody does get sued over an article. it is a rather uncomfortable feeling to be threatened with such a suit, especially when the 'accuser' is a corporate giant. this is precisely what happened to me about a month ago. i allegedly made a posting which gave my opinion about a company which is represented on this network by marketing twerps instead of engineering types. they promptly threatened me with legal action. it's one thing to have MES after you in court... it's another to have a big corporation threaten court action. -- ... Steve Elias ; eli@spdcc.com ; 6179325598 ; {} *disclaimer(); /* watch out for litigous pinheads! */ /* and: free email-->fax for boston destinations */
karl@cheops.cis.ohio-state.edu (Karl Kleinpaste) (11/21/89)
wcn@max.u.washington.edu writes:
...the offended party can sue the
institution, as the article's publisher, rather than the alleged
author. Transport level security holes aside, it's still possible
to prove distribution, so this University, for example, could be
held liable.
No, you can't prove distribution.
You miss entirely the point that a forgery, a really good forgery,
wouldn't even appear to have come from its genuine source. If I were
intending to forge the posting of someone's proprietary source code, I
would see to it that the posting appeared to come from, oh, say, UCSD,
or UTexas, or Rutgers, or... The transport security holes are so
large that the real originating site can be completely unidentifiable.
It may look like it came from UIUC, but it could just as easily have
really come from RPI.
The issue of proving authorship is _much_ larger and more difficult
than simply saying, "the article came from Over-There.EDU!" Most
importantly, the Usenet admin at Over-There.EDU will be most anxious
to point out that the offending article didn't come from his site,
shown by the Usenet and NNTP/UUCP logs.
*poof* Not a leg to stand on. You can't _prove_ a thing - not even
an article's point of origin.
Furthermore, an individual can't wait until a libel suit goes to
trial before shouting "forgery". A bogus article must be
disclaimed at first opportunity, otherwise authorship may be
implicitly assumed.
A good forgery of this type wouldn't claim to come from a real
individual in the first place. No human would have to disclaim
forgery; the article would claim to have come from
John_Smith@Over-There.EDU, when no John_Smith exists there.
--Karldavidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) (11/21/89)
In article <10771@max.u.washington.edu> wcn@max.u.washington.edu (W C Newell Jr) writes: | It is not clear whether a newsgroup is to be considered a "publishing medium" | in the legal sense. If we assume for the sake of argument that it is, then the | offended party can sue the institution, as the article's publisher, rather than | the alleged author. Transport level security holes aside, it's still possible | to prove distribution, so this University, for example, could be held liable. The enforcability of this is *very* dubious. There is a principle that there is no responsibility without control. Usenet has the same control over the traffic as the phone conpanies do over their traffic (none). Unless you postulate some responsibility for each site to approve each article before feeding or posting it? I could see some possible attack on the moderator of a group who approved an article, because there is an element of control. I could even see a suit against the posting site for allowing the individual access to the net. The kicker is that there is no solid way to prove authorship, approval, or posting site. There *is* a body of technical opinion which states that a good forgery is impossible to detect, since bits all look the same when they come in the modem. -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) "The world is filled with fools. They blindly follow their so-called 'reason' in the face of the church and common sense. Any fool can see that the world is flat!" - anon
tgl@zog.cs.cmu.edu (Tom Lane) (11/22/89)
In article <10771@max.u.washington.edu>, wcn@max.u.washington.edu (W C Newell Jr) writes: > In article <25683CAB.25106@ateng.com>, chip@ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes: > > 5. Sites that carry a newsgroup would probably be in a situation similar > > to supermarkets that carry the National Enquirer. The Enquirer losing > > a hypothetical libel suit doesn't make the supermarkets who carry it > > liable. Of course, this is only one possible interpretation. > > You got this analogy from a lawyer? The supermarket has no role in reviewing > the contents of the Enquirer; the magazine's publisher is clearly identified on > the editorial page (as required by law). The sites have a major role in > reviewing and filtering newsgroup content, and assume status of co-publisher by > default. Say what? Do *you* read every one of the articles that comes down the line? Last I looked there were about 3500 on an average day. The notion that anybody filters this stuff is laughable. At the most a suit could claim that I acquiesced in taking some particular newsgroup. We all know that the correlation between newsgroup and article content is none too high; and in any case an article that someone would actually bother to sue over would probably appear in some perfectly reasonable group (say, something nasty about Apple in comp.sys.mac?) In any case most large sites don't even bother to exercise control over newsgroups. We periodically weed out stuff that isn't on Spaf's lists, but the contents of our junk spool prove that most of our neighbors don't even do that. I'm proud to say that I'm not a lawyer either. -- tom lane, CMU-CS news admin Internet: tgl@cs.cmu.edu UUCP: <your favorite internet/arpanet gateway>!cs.cmu.edu!tgl BITNET: tgl%cs.cmu.edu@cmuccvma CompuServe: >internet:tgl@cs.cmu.edu
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (11/22/89)
In article <10771@max.u.washington.edu> wcn@max.u.washington.edu (W C Newell Jr) writes: >> 5. Sites that carry a newsgroup would probably be in a situation similar >> to supermarkets that carry the National Enquirer. The Enquirer losing >> a hypothetical libel suit doesn't make the supermarkets who carry it >> liable. Of course, this is only one possible interpretation. > >You got this analogy from a lawyer? The supermarket has no role in reviewing >the contents of the Enquirer; the magazine's publisher is clearly identified on >the editorial page (as required by law). The sites have a major role in >reviewing and filtering newsgroup content, and assume status of co-publisher by >default. Um, how do you (or your lawyer friends) conclude this? Who at your site reviews and filters newsgroup content? Usenix got a real, formal, proper-charlie legal opinion on this issue a few years ago. The answer to "are Usenet sites innocent common carriers or guilty co-publishers?" is "NOBODY KNOWS". There are arguments both ways and no adequate precedent. A court might well choose some intermediate position. -- A bit of tolerance is worth a | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology megabyte of flaming. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
gerard@uwovax.uwo.ca (Gerard Stafleu) (11/22/89)
In article <10771@max.u.washington.edu>, wcn@max.u.washington.edu (W C Newell Jr) writes: >> 5. Sites that carry a newsgroup would probably be in a situation similar >> to supermarkets that carry the National Enquirer. The Enquirer losing >> a hypothetical libel suit doesn't make the supermarkets who carry it >> liable. Of course, this is only one possible interpretation. > > You got this analogy from a lawyer? The supermarket has no role in reviewing > the contents of the Enquirer; the magazine's publisher is clearly identified on > the editorial page (as required by law). The sites have a major role in > reviewing and filtering newsgroup content, and assume status of co-publisher by > default. "A major role in reviewing and filtering news group contents", whatever gave you that idea? A site decides whether or not to carry a certain newsgroup, like a supermarket decides whether or not to sell the National Enquirer. But that is it. Do you seriously think the sites read through the individual postings to determine the content? A site has just as much to do with the contents of a newsgroup, as a supermarket has with the contents of the National Enquirer. Nothing, that is. So I think the analogy is quite valid. -------------------------------------------- Gerard Stafleu (519) 661-2151 Ext. 6043 Internet: gerard@uwovax.uwo.ca BITNET: gerard@uwovax
eli@spdcc.COM (Steve Elias) (11/22/89)
eli@ursa-major.spdcc.COM (Steve Elias) writes: > > a lawyer tells me that libel must be spoken, and that > slander is written. so shouldn't you be saying "slander case"? overruled! honestly, i don't need a new lawyer... he told me the opposite, and i got it backwards all by myself! -- ... Steve Elias ; eli@spdcc.com ; 6179325598 ; {} *disclaimer(); /* watch out for litigous pinheads! */ /* and: free email-->fax for boston destinations */
wcn@max.u.washington.edu (W C Newell Jr) (11/22/89)
Multiple overlapping responses: ------ From: karl@cheops.cis.ohio-state.edu (Karl Kleinpaste) > No, you can't prove distribution. > > You miss entirely the point that a forgery, a really good forgery, > wouldn't even appear to have come from its genuine source. > [technical info deleted] OK, I'll speak more slowly. I know something about network theory, and I will stipulate that UUCP and NNTP are insecure and that people can hack their own datagrams, etc. You cannot prove >origin<, but you can prove >distribution<. The fact that a copy of your article sits on my disk proves that distribution occured. Since we get our feeds from exactly one source, the NSFnet backbone, it can be proven that NSF (or more properly Merit, the entity that administers NSFnet), acted as a distributor of any problematic articles we may have received. While proof of origin would supercede, this may be enough to assess liability. If you doubt this, I advise making sure you have a good lawyer to back you up. ------ From: davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) > The enforcability of this is *very* dubious. There is a principle that > there is no responsibility without control. Usenet has the same control > over the traffic as the phone conpanies do over their traffic (none). NO! Class action lawsuits forced the USPS to grant consumers the right to refuse junk mail, in particular sexually explicit mail. The USPS is liable if they deliver something in the face of a written customer refusal. It is my understanding that litigation is pending against the phone companies on this same issue, in the context of computer-generated "junk phone calls". Moreover, the phone companies have all sorts of control if I report the receipt of harassing calls. Read the front of the phone book about the procedures to follow. That stuff isn't there as a public service; it's all been agreed to by federal agencies and lawyers and such, to protect the carriers from liability. Usenet has no formal procedures in place to investigate alleged abuses, and most sites seem to be thumbing their collective noses at the security issues, so the question of liability is wide open. If you doubt this, I advise making sure you have a good lawyer to back you up. > Unless you postulate some responsibility for each site to approve each > article before feeding or posting it? It is not necessary to go to that extreme. It is a good idea to make sure your site's access policy is well publicized and available to any user for reference. It is also a good idea, and may eventually become a legal requirement, to explain to users how to report problems, and to make sure you can document their investigation and resolution. > [...] The kicker is that there is no solid way to prove > authorship, approval, or posting site. There *is* a body of technical > opinion which states that a good forgery is impossible to detect, since > bits all look the same when they come in the modem. A "good" forgery is like a "perfect" crime; the perpetrator gets away with it. But what about a not-so-good forgery? I predict that we'll eventually start seeing a bunch of these. The comparison between the computer networks and the phone companies suggests that the strategy of hiding behind transport level security holes won't stand up to a serious court challenge. ------ From: tgl@zog.cs.cmu.edu (Tom Lane) > Say what? Do *you* read every one of the articles that comes down the > line? Last I looked there were about 3500 on an average day. The > notion that anybody filters this stuff is laughable. Filter by group, not by individual article. > In any case most large sites don't even bother to exercise control over > newsgroups. We periodically weed out stuff that isn't on Spaf's lists, but > the contents of our junk spool prove that most of our neighbors don't even > do that. Speak for yourself. We won't hesitate to pull a group if there are multiple complaints. My personal feeling is that the showdown is likely to occur over alt.sex.bondage or perhaps one of the talk.* groups. People seem to have forgotten the controversy that erupted at Michigan when some users threatened to sue the University over allegedly racist material on their local bulletin board. They opted to shut down the board altogether, and that story (the board's closure, not the debate over its contents) made page 1 of the NY Times. We have investigated complaints about material posted on our local system, and much of the legal opinion I cite is derived from my personal involvement with that process. ------ From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) > Usenix got a real, formal, proper-charlie legal opinion on this issue a few > years ago. The answer to "are Usenet sites innocent common carriers or > guilty co-publishers?" is "NOBODY KNOWS". There are arguments both ways and > no adequate precedent. A court might well choose some intermediate position. I agree completely with the "nobody knows" part. The point I'm trying to make is that I've heard valid legal arguments on both sides. I am getting very frustrated with the recurrant postings by some admins which proclaim their sites to be immune from liability, when there is another side to it and the central issues have not been tested in court. It should also be noted that a legal opinion which considers only privately held UUCP connections may be entirely different from one which looks at the implications of federal regulation of the Internet. The newsgroup feeds have only been carried on the NSFnet backbone for a year or so. There exists a draft of an official "access policy" for NSFnet as a whole, which may soon have significant influence on this discussion. I have this nagging feeling that there is a hidden motive to these articles, namely that the spectre of legal hassles, and the suggestion that these can be avoided as long as Usenet has no formal organization or structure, are being used as a scare tactic to forestall any attempts by the large academic sites to propose administrative changes. As I have said before, the result could be the division of Usenet as we now know it into separate hierarchies. I think we are already starting to see evidence of this trend. Bill Newell Systems Analyst, Applications Consulting Group University of Washington WCN@MAX.U.WASHINGTON.EDU
craig@com2serv.C2S.MN.ORG (Craig S. Wilson) (11/22/89)
In article W C Newell Jr writes:
The sites have a major role in
reviewing and filtering newsgroup content, and assume status of co-publisher by
default.
I guess you would have to explain to me why you feel that sites should
do this. Why not just assume the responsibility of passing the news
on and not worry about the content? Read the groups you are
interested in and let the rest go through unfiltered.
It is interesting to note that this policy might also have prevented
the namespace problems, in that all groups would have equal
distribution.
Maybe, if you establish this as your "official" policy on the handling of
news, you could distance yourself, institutionally, from any
controversy. Of course, I am not a lawyer, so I guess I haven't been
certified by the state as being able to dwell on issues like this. ;^)
/craig
Craig S. Wilson | Democracy |{amdahl|hpda}!bungia!com50!craig
Com Squared Systems, Inc | is not a |craig@c2s.mn.org
2520 Pilot Knob Road | spectator |(612) 452-9522 voice
Mendota Heights MN 55120 | sport. |(612) 452-3607 faxdavidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) (11/22/89)
In article <10814@max.u.washington.edu> wcn@max.u.washington.edu (W C Newell Jr) writes: | NO! Class action lawsuits forced the USPS to grant consumers the right to | refuse junk mail, in particular sexually explicit mail. The USPS is liable if | they deliver something in the face of a written customer refusal. It is my | understanding that litigation is pending against the phone companies on this | same issue, in the context of computer-generated "junk phone calls". What's the connection? Have you given a written request to your feed not to send you a group? If they refuse to take the group out of their sys file have you taken it out of yours? If you want your feed to provide article by article censoring I'm sure you can get a Clarinet feed somewhere, or that your current feed will be willing to do it (by removing your site from their sys file). Sites DO warn users, or even remove their privileges. Sites DO stop taking or giving feeds to other sites. But since YOU have control over what comes in, on YOUR site, there is not a good analogy to the USPS. You can stop incoming news yourself, while the USPS will keep coming unless they take action. BTW: the USPS will not let you ask to stop getting bills or summons because you feel they are "obscene." They will stop someone from mailing to you by threat of legal action, but that's not the same thing as opening and evaluating each letter. -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) "The world is filled with fools. They blindly follow their so-called 'reason' in the face of the church and common sense. Any fool can see that the world is flat!" - anon
bob@MorningStar.Com (Bob Sutterfield) (11/23/89)
In article <10814@max.u.washington.edu> wcn@max.u.washington.edu (W C Newell Jr) writes:
From: karl@cheops.cis.ohio-state.edu (Karl Kleinpaste)
No, you can't prove distribution.
You miss entirely the point that a forgery, a really good
forgery, wouldn't even appear to have come from its genuine
source. [technical info deleted]
OK, I'll speak more slowly.
There's no need to get condescending.
You cannot prove >origin<, but you can prove >distribution<. The
fact that a copy of your article sits on my disk proves that
distribution occured.
Because of the same problems that render you unable to prove that it's
my article, you also can't prove that it originated anywhere other
than on your disk. Therefore, you can't prove distribution.
Since we get our feeds from exactly one source, the NSFnet
backbone, it can be proven that NSF acted as a distributor of any
problematic articles we may have received.
Since you have no way to prove whether it ever existed anywhere else
besides on your disk, you have no way to prove whether it has
traveled, nor whether it passed over any given transport.
Yes, article forgeries may become more common and less skillful. But
the very ease with which they can be done has so far removed the
challenge, and therefore the motivation. I'm not too worried.cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (11/23/89)
In article <691@ursa-major.SPDCC.COM>, eli@spdcc.COM (Steve Elias) writes: > wcn@max.u.washington.edu (W C Newell Jr) writes: > >he/she will agree to take it on. Some will accept libel cases based on a > >percentage of the award, if any. The first big Internet libel case will > >probably work like this, with a lot of attendant media publicity. > > a lawyer tells me that libel must be spoken, and that > slander is written. so shouldn't you be saying "slander case"? Exactly backward. Libel is derived from the Latin *liber* (book), and refers to written defamation of character; slander is oral. Let's hope your memory is defective, and not your lawyer's law degree. > ... Steve Elias ; eli@spdcc.com ; 6179325598 ; {} -- Clayton E. Cramer {pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer My definition of social justice: those who refuse to work deserve to go hungry. =============================================================================== Disclaimer? You must be kidding! No company would hold opinions like mine!
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (11/23/89)
Nobody can or should control all that flows through USENET, but site admins certainly do have it within their power to net get alt.sex, or rec.humor, or even sci.aquaria :-). Personally, I think they are crazy. For once you start controlling this, forbidding one group and permitting another based on your opinion of the legality of its content, then you *are* responsible for feeding it because you have, and have exercised, control. I think it is far safer to take no moral stands on what is written than to take just one. -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
emv@math.lsa.umich.edu (Edward Vielmetti) (11/23/89)
In article <10814@max.u.washington.edu> wcn@max.u.washington.edu (W C Newell Jr) writes: >People seem to have forgotten the controversy that erupted at Michigan when >some users threatened to sue the University over allegedly racist material on >their local bulletin board. They opted to shut down the board altogether, and >that story (the board's closure, not the debate over its contents) made page 1 >of the NY Times. We have investigated complaints about material posted on our >local system, and much of the legal opinion I cite is derived from my personal >involvement with that process. No, no, no, that's not how I remember it. The "local bulletin board" (meet:students on ubmts.cc.umich.edu) was not shut down. It's still going strong, just as much chatter as before. People have been sensitized to the issue, to be sure. Michigan has a reasonably well thought-out policy on appropriate use of computing facilities, which I can provide to anyone who's interested. --Ed (we call it meet:stupids, now)
mbenglander@trillium.waterloo.edu (Mathew Englander) (11/23/89)
In article <KARL.89Nov21101205@cheops.cis.ohio-state.edu> karl@cheops.cis.ohio-state.edu (Karl Kleinpaste) writes: > >You miss entirely the point that a forgery, a really good forgery, >wouldn't even appear to have come from its genuine source. If I were >intending to forge the posting of someone's proprietary source code, I >would see to it that the posting appeared to come from, oh, say, UCSD, >or UTexas, or Rutgers, or... The transport security holes are so >large that the real originating site can be completely unidentifiable. [...] >A good forgery of this type wouldn't claim to come from a real >individual in the first place. No human would have to disclaim >forgery; the article would claim to have come from >John_Smith@Over-There.EDU, when no John_Smith exists there. > >--Karl Well, Karl, you miss entirely the point that the vast majority of articles on Usenet are _not_ forgeries. The important questions are 1) can I be sued for libel for an article I author and 2) can my university be sued for distributing what I have written. Now obviously if an article apparently comes from John_Smith@Over-There.EDU when there is no such John_Smith, John_Smith cannot be sued. And it is reasonable to assume that Over-There University cannot be sued either since authorship is clearly in doubt. But if I or the University gets sued, and I actually did write the article in question, it is irrelevant that authorship is impossible to prove definitively -- unless I perjure myself by denying having written the article. Mathew Englander.
wcn@max.u.washington.edu (W C Newell Jr) (11/23/89)
In article <51365@looking.on.ca>, brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: > Nobody can or should control all that flows through USENET, but site > admins certainly do have it within their power to net get alt.sex, or > rec.humor, or even sci.aquaria :-). Absolutely. > Personally, I think they are crazy. For once you start controlling this, > forbidding one group and permitting another based on your opinion of the > legality of its content, then you *are* responsible for feeding it because > you have, and have exercised, control. > > I think it is far safer to take no moral stands on what is written than > to take just one. Fine, if each site had unilateral control over its resources. We are a public institution, however, and are accountable to the taxpayers who foot the bills, more specifically to the state and federal agencies which represent them (in particular the National Science Foundation). It's their network, after all. If anyone has problems with the policies of the NSF or the University of Washington, they don't have to include us in their distribution. Bill Newell Systems Analyst, Applications Consulting Group University of Washington WCN@MAX.U.WASHINGTON.EDU
carlo@electro.UUCP (Carlo Sgro) (11/24/89)
In article <51365@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: >Personally, I think they are crazy. For once you start controlling this, >forbidding one group and permitting another based on your opinion of the >legality of its content, then you *are* responsible for feeding it because >you have, and have exercised, control. We don't get a full news feed because our fastest modem is only 2400 baud. Thus, we have to slash. We don't get rec.ham-radio because of its volume. We also don't get all of talk for the same reason. Most of sci doesn't touch this site because no one is interested in it (Richard Sexton please note :-)). We do get alt.sex.*, however. We're not trying to censor groups. We simply have to decide what we want and what we don't want because, if we don't, we most likely wouldn't get any. Not because of legality and not because of morality but because of necessity. Control? Sure. We have to. But I'm not crazy ... :-) -- Carlo Sgro Vote for your favorite .signature! watmath!watcgl!electro!carlo Call 1-900-GOODONE ($2 on your phone bill).
greg@lawnet.LawNet.Com (Gregory G. Petersen) (11/24/89)
In article <691@ursa-major.SPDCC.COM> eli@ursa-major.spdcc.COM (Steve Elias) writes: >wcn@max.u.washington.edu (W C Newell Jr) writes: >>he/she will agree to take it on. Some will accept libel cases based on a >>percentage of the award, if any. The first big Internet libel case will >>probably work like this, with a lot of attendant media publicity. Libel cases being among the most difficult to win most lawyers do not take them on a contingent basis (percentage of award). > > a lawyer tells me that libel must be spoken, and that > slander is written. so shouldn't you be saying "slander case"? slander is oral -- libel is written. > >>Of course, if you believe no one will ever be sued over a Usenet article, then >>this is a moot point. > > i hope that nobody does get sued over an article. it is a > rather uncomfortable feeling to be threatened with such a suit, > especially when the 'accuser' is a corporate giant. this is precisely > what happened to me about a month ago. > i allegedly made a posting which gave my opinion about a > company which is represented on this network by marketing twerps > instead of engineering types. they promptly threatened me with > legal action. it's one thing to have MES after you in court... > it's another to have a big corporation threaten court action. It would seem to be a foolish endeavor for a corporate giant to sue over an article in USENET unless the target were another giant. The instant answer for many of the students, young engineers and others who have access to USENET would, in many cases, be laughter since the cost of the suit by the giant would, in many cases, exceed the net worth of the target. The only way that the plaintiff can recover is if he can, in most cases that I can imagine here, sue the site or the site owner. A site is not necessarily responsible for the contents of the messages that individuals post. If the president of IBM were to post to the net and sign it "President" it would appear that the corporate entity would be liable, but most cases it is a student, engineer or other person with a disclaimer that they don't speak for anyone. In fact the understanding that I have is that most people, unless they say so, are not speaking for the site - but merely themselves. Under those circumstances I doubt that the suit would be a prudient investment for the giant (or it's attorneys). An opinion -- as opposed to a statement of fact -- is normally just that. It is extremely difficult to successfully sue for an opinion statement. And the reality is that to sue you must prove things that may also require the disclosure of trade secrets -- a point most giants will consider before suing anyone. Finally -- the hostility they would generate on the net for suing would be most damaging -- problably more than the original statement itself. -- Gregory G. Petersen Voice: 714-971-1441 greg@lawnet.LawNet.Com Petersen & Trott Fax: 714-971-1329 770 The City Drive South A Law Corporation Orange, California 92668
chip@ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) (11/24/89)
According to wcn@max.u.washington.edu (W C Newell Jr): >I am getting very frustrated with the recurrant postings by some admins >which proclaim their sites to be immune from liability [...] Mr. Newell has apparently been reading a different network. The only articles here claiming _immunity_ from liability have referred to the Usenet as a whole: the Usenet, in a very real sense, does not exist, and if it doesn't exist you can't sue it. Sites do exist and can be sued; the likelihood of success in such a suit is unknown. >I have this nagging feeling that there is a hidden motive to these articles, >namely that the spectre of legal hassles, and the suggestion that these can >be avoided as long as Usenet has no formal organization or structure, >are being used as a scare tactic to forestall any attempts by the large >academic sites to propose administrative changes. We're just discussing the issues involved and stating opinions. Please take further speculation about hidden agendas to alt.conspiracy. -- Chip Salzenberg at A T Engineering; <chip@ateng.com> or <uunet!ateng!chip> Spokesman for the Cabal of Commercial Usenet Sites (there is no Cabal) You may redistribute this article only to those who may freely do likewise.
chip@ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) (11/24/89)
Further non-laywer notes of conversation with a laywer follow. IMHO, UUNET's official answer of "nobody knows" is probably to be believed; but there are some interesting details to discuss... According to Bill Newell: > It goes without saying that an attorney must believe your case has merit > before he/she will agree to take it on. Some will accept libel cases based > on a percentage of the award, if any. Yes, there are lawyers who will accept contingency fees. The cost of litigation goes far beyond what you pay your lawyer. It includes travel expense, time off from work, communication costs, research costs, etc., all extending over a period of _years_. It is a common misconception that the loser in court always pays the legal costs of the winner. > It is not clear whether a newsgroup is to be considered a "publishing > medium" in the legal sense. It seems we need to clarify terms. In cases of libel and slander, to meet the requirement of "publication", the statement must be communicated to a third party -- i.e., not the speaker and not the person libeled/slandered. This consitutes "publication". The idea of "publishing medium" simply doesn't enter into the matter at all. To prove slander/libel you must show that the defendent made the statement, that it was published (communicated to a third person), that it was false, and (in some states) that specific quantifiable damages resulted. (In suits against the press, you must also prove malice and/or (I think) extreme negligence.) The first part alone is a big hindrance. > Transport level security holes aside, it's still possible to prove > distribution, so this University, for example, could be held liable. How do you _prove_ distribution? The Path: header can lie, you know. And articles can be forged locally. (Yes, at _your_ site.) > Furthermore, an individual can't wait until a libel suit goes to trial > before shouting "forgery". A bogus article must be disclaimed at first > opportunity, otherwise authorship may be implicitly assumed. Ha. Show any jury the sheer quantity of material that goes across the Usenet and the unreliability of transport, and the "you must have seen it, why didn't you disclaim it" attack will be seen as bogus. Which it is. > If a person's good name and reputation is ruined by false statements in a > Usenet article, then >someone< is liable. "Lawyers don't sue people, people sue people." The person who erred is the person who made the false statement; this is the person who should be held responsible. We all apparently acknowledge that proof of authorship on the Usenet would be exceedingly difficult. Faced with this fact, Mr. Newell takes the position that, "then >someone< is liable" (emphasis in original). Unfortunately, most people then look for the deep pocket and attempt to impute legal liability. Thus we should avoid creating suit magnets. > The supermarket has no role in reviewing the contents of the Enquirer; > the magazine's publisher is clearly identified on the editorial page > (as required by law). Again, let's define terms. As the question was originally put to me, we were discussing the issue of legal publication and the Usenet was being discussed as a means of _receiving_ information. In that context, could an employer who provides employees with access to the Usenet be held liable for publication? I don't think so. The same employer provides books, magazines, journals, telefaxes, incoming telephone calls, etc., to the employees and is not liable for publishing -- communicating -- the contents of those items. The Usenet is similar. By the same token, the seller of magazines is not generally liable for the content of the magazine. > The sites have a major role in reviewing and filtering newsgroup > content, and assume status of co-publisher by default. Who is "reviewing and filtering"? I've heard of no one doing this. Certainly no one at my site is filtering anything, at least not on an article level. > > 6. The less policy a company has about Usenet, the more protected it is > > from possible legal attack. > > The correct legal term escapes me, but there exists the concept of > "marketplace consensus". If your company does not have a policy, the court > may assume that you implicitly abide by the policies of other sites, if a > consensus exists. If an employer articulates policies and procedures for the regulation of employee behavior in a certain area, then that employer has arguably assumed responsibility for behavior in that area. Case precedent has in many instances started with such voluntarily accepted responsiblity and imputed legal liability. It would seem that for _outgoing_ messages, the Usenet is similar to the telephone except that it _can_ permit an employer to screen outgoing messages before they are communicated to an outside party. Existing employer policies and procedures concerning the use of the Usenet raise the question of employer methods of enforcement of those policies and procedures. This is where a jury might possibly make the leap from voluntarily accepted responsiblity to imputed legal liability. An employer's potential liability would be most extreme if the employer's policies and procedures specifically required screening of all entries prior to posting. (Remember, though, that the reading of a message for screening purposes constitutes legal publication -- it need not be propagated further.) Note that this potential liability would exist for other forms of communication that are as a matter of policy screened by the employer, such as letters, memos, etc. To the extent that an employer has simplistic policies seeking to limit personal use on the telephone, similar policies could be implemented concerning personal use of the Usenet. If the policy stated that enforcement is by methods other than screening the content of the messages, this may lessen liability exposure. Generally, an employer is not liable for the content of of employee telephone calls unless the content is as specifically and provably instructed by the employer or (in some instances) the calls are continued in spite of employer knowledge of the content of the call. An example fitting both these situations would be harrassing or threatening collection calls. > > 7. A hypothetical Usenet Inc. would be a suit magnet. > > Maybe, but it would shield the individual sites from liability. If we have a plaintiff without the money to finance the suit and a lawyer working on a contingency fee, the "suit magnet" would be the entity with the deep pocket or with the most comprehensive insurance coverage. Building a large "war chest" to deal with suits just begs someone to go for it. What do this insurance companies have to say on these matters? Do policies now contain specific limitations to coverage of losses based on publication via the Usenet? I'd like to know... Final disclaimer: I'm not a laywer, nor do I play one on TV. -- You may redistribute this article only to those who may freely do likewise. Chip Salzenberg at A T Engineering; <chip@ateng.com> or <uunet!ateng!chip> "Did I ever tell you the Jim Gladding story about the binoculars?"
chip@ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) (11/24/89)
According to wcn@max.u.washington.edu (W C Newell Jr): >If anyone has problems with the policies of the NSF or the University of >Washington, they don't have to include us in their distribution. Ha. Haha. If your site has a news feed, that means you're getting what you asked for. You can always turn off the feed. Short of that, there's nothing you or anyone else can do to control article content. -- You may redistribute this article only to those who may freely do likewise. Chip Salzenberg at A T Engineering; <chip@ateng.com> or <uunet!ateng!chip> "Did I ever tell you the Jim Gladding story about the binoculars?"
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (11/24/89)
Cutting groups to save money, if that's clearly the reason, is never a problem. Cutting groups for *moral* reasons is a mistake. If you ban alt.sex for moral reasons, then you have put yourself in the postition of moral judge of your newsfeed. Once you excercise that power, you are implicitly approving what you don't ban, because you have a policy of cutting out the immoral stuff. If instead you make a "we take all" or "we only cut to save money." stand, then you're ok. So if you cut alt.sex (and keep alt.msdos, for example) how can one tell the difference between cutting for moral reasons and cutting for cost reasons? It's tough -- certainly a very gray area. But if you cut something that's free, small in volume and high in demand (like rec.humor.funny) then everybody knows that no matter what you say about cost, you're doing it for moral reasons. If you cut talk.bizarre, almost everybody will figure it's for cost. If you cut due to complaints rather than volume, then you may be in for trouble. This hit the president of the University of Waterloo after he banned rec.humor.funny. He was then pushed to ban a beauty pageant that rented space each year in the theatre, as it was viewed as sexist by various groups. Before, he could have said that it wasn't the University's business to judge the morals of productions in the theatre. But after banning the jokes, nobody believed that stance. This is the stance I take in rec.humor.funny. I never block material for offensive content. If I did, and something I did let through offended somebody (as always happens) then they *could* blame me as well as the author for the offensiveness. -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (11/24/89)
I don't think the non-security of the net would be a great defence.
Let's say a posting comes out, with the right path from me, calling
Mr. X on the net a very nasty name. If X is the litigious type, and
wants to sue, first thing he will do is e-mail me, complaining. He
may also post to the net, complaining. ("may," HAH!)
Now if it's a forgery, I won't see it since it has my site in the path.
But I will see the e-mail and the posting with 99% probablility.
I can ignore the e-mail, but if X is serious he will then phone or
write a registered letter. If, after all this, I don't claim it's
a forgery (no suit has been served yet) that would be rather odd, would
it not?
Then the suit is served, and suddenly I say, "how do you know it's not
a forgery." For most people on USENET, if a forgery is done, the
policy is to disclaim the forgery ASAP. Usually the target of the forgery,
and half the rest of the net, mail you to ask about it.
So if you were the judge, and I only claimed a forgery months after the
fact, when the suit started, what would you rule? Remember, in civil
law, there is no concept of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." That's
a criminal law concept. In civil law, there just has to be a
preponderance of evidence for the plaintif's case.
The deep-pocket concept scares me, too. Right now, USENET does not
contain much in the way of people who want to run out and sue, in spite
of what some people think. How many *actual suits* have been served?
We know none have gone to court. A suit would destroy portions of
the net, although not all, and for now most people seem to realize that
bringing a suit would not be in their best interests.
After all, all Jonathan Richmond did was go to the papers and get a group
cut off at 2 universities, and his name is thankfully mud.
--
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473dtgcube (Edward Jung) (11/24/89)
OK, guys, now you're in trouble. I have been secretly culling the entire
transcript of this thread and have sold it for lucrative profit to the
producers of L.A. Law. You guys don't get a penny.
And *my* lawyers say that's OK, because if you can successfully sue me
over this, then anyone can sue anybody else, the whole Usenet thing will shut
down, and that, of course, will result in the fall of civilization, and
the ultimate clearing of the court docket.
See you in court, counselor.
--
Edward Jung The Deep Thought Group, L.P.
BIX: ejung 3400 Swede Hill Road
NeXT or UNIX mail Clinton, WA. 98236
UUCP: uunet!dtgcube!ed Internet: ed@dtg.comjmi@devsim.mdcbbs.com ((JM Ivler) MDC - Douglas Aircraft Co. Long Beach, CA.) (11/24/89)
One of the problems with the *law* is that it is not logical (this comes from the son of a lawyer, who wanted a father and son firm). The best example of this is the Federal Courts ruling that bringing up an action to them that they feel is not one for litigation could be cause for penalties (that law was designed to avoid nusance suits). This same law, if applied to cases that were brought up in the past, would have eliminated cases like Row .v. Wade and Miranda (making this not one of the most reasonable laws on the books, eh?). One question that has not been raised in the forum to date, is the form such litigation would have to take. Our court system is designed to handle civil cases at various levels. Since the USENET goes across the state boundries, distribution could be considered interstate. Would this justify the prosecution to move this type of case to the federal level? If so, would any law firm be willing to expose itself to the "actions of the court" should the court find such legal action frivolus? Like I said at the start of this, the *law* is not logical (there is also no justice, but that is a different story all together). This being the case, the question of USENETS liability is somewhat moot. Until someone sets a precidence on how interstate communications via computer conferencing is to be addressed via an act of litigation, I don't see any answers to the questions that have been posed to date with one exception. Any conference that is moderated is under the control of that individual. That individual is responsible for all postings made since they have approved all postings and chose to post such items (in the context of publication, this person has been the editor and publisher of the item since they have determined to post such an item). One final note: I am not a lawyer (the note below is designed to cover my buns when expressing a legal opinion in writing)! The opinions expessed herein are those of the author and do not represent those of the employer. The above has been posted with the understanding that I not engaging in the rendering of legal, accounting or other professional service. If legal advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional person should be sought. _Decleration of Principles_ - American Bar Association J.M. Ivler (for myself) JMI@DEVSIM.MDCBBS.COM
gerard@uwovax.uwo.ca (Gerard Stafleu) (11/25/89)
In article <256C5724.296@ateng.com>, chip@ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes: > > the Usenet, in a very real sense, does not exist, This, I think, is a good candidate for the quote of the year. The reason it does not exist is probably that it is too good to be true? (Not that I don't tend to agree with you :-) -- Gerard Stafleu (519) 661-2151 Ext. 6043 Internet: gerard@uwovax.uwo.ca BITNET: gerard@uwovax
wcn@max.u.washington.edu (W C Newell Jr) (11/25/89)
More multiple overlapping responses: ------ From: chip@ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) > It seems we need to clarify terms. In cases of libel and slander, to meet > the requirement of "publication", the statement must be communicated to a > third party -- i.e., not the speaker and not the person libeled/slandered. > This consitutes "publication". The idea of "publishing medium" simply > doesn't enter into the matter at all. It makes a big difference, because libel and slander are themselves completely different things. I am not qualified to elaborate further. > To prove slander/libel you must show that the defendent made the statement, > that it was published (communicated to a third person), that it was false, > and (in some states) that specific quantifiable damages resulted. (In suits > against the press, you must also prove malice and/or (I think) extreme > negligence.) The first part alone is a big hindrance. I agree with all but the last sentence. Your fall-back argument, that the defendant can always claim "forgery", doesn't wash. If I forge an article under your ID which libels Brad Templeton, are you really going to wait until he sues you before disclaiming it??? No, I think you'd speak up right away and ask other admins to pull the offending article. "Absence of malice" protects you from having to clear each article before it's posted, but if I complain about something with my name in it and you let it stand, then you are accountable for that decision. > How do you _prove_ distribution? The Path: header can lie, you know. And > articles can be forged locally. (Yes, at _your_ site.) If the exact same article appears at sites A, B and C, then some transport agent was used to distribute it. Of course, you may argue that the article was simultaneously forged at each Internet backbone site, in which case I would consider this discussion closed. > [...] In that context, could an > employer who provides employees with access to the Usenet be held liable for > publication? I don't think so. The same employer provides books, > magazines, journals, telefaxes, incoming telephone calls, etc., to the > employees and is not liable for publishing -- communicating -- the contents > of those items. The Usenet is similar. If a publisher is explicitly identified, then the distribution agent is protected from liability. Conversely, if no publisher is identified, the distributor assumes legal responsibility for publication. This is why magazines are required by federal law to announce their ownership, business address and related information at regular intervals, otherwise the USPS will not deliver them and newsagents (read: supermarket) will not sell them. > By the same token, the seller of magazines is not generally liable for the > content of the magazine. See above. If the supermarket posts a flyer in the window with no publisher identified, then they are liable for its contents. >> The sites have a major role in reviewing and filtering newsgroup >> content, and assume status of co-publisher by default. > > Who is "reviewing and filtering"? I've heard of no one doing this. > Certainly no one at my site is filtering anything, at least not on an > article level. Get real. LOTS of sites filter at the group level, for a variety of reasons. We rarely edit at the article level, but we do look at things on occasion in response to user complaints. An article originating from this very site (entitled "this is fun") was cancelled by one of the net.gods a month or so ago. We pulled alt.stupidity because it was (get this) stupid. I am trying to get alt.sex.* pulled here as well, on the grounds of "suitability of purpose" (see below). > If an employer articulates policies and procedures for the regulation of > employee behavior in a certain area, then that employer has arguably assumed > responsibility for behavior in that area. Case precedent has in many > instances started with such voluntarily accepted responsiblity and imputed > legal liability. Get seriously real. This university has had an access policy and a student code of conduct on the books for many years. We're not about to abandon this position because some lawyer for a non-academic site says that "less policy = less liability". We have standards to maintain, and one way or another we will achieve that goal. > To the extent that an employer has simplistic policies seeking to limit > personal use on the telephone, similar policies could be implemented > concerning personal use of the Usenet. If the policy stated that > enforcement is by methods other than screening the content of the messages, > this may lessen liability exposure. Generally, an employer is not liable > for the content of of employee telephone calls unless the content is as > specifically and provably instructed by the employer or (in some instances) > the calls are continued in spite of employer knowledge of the content of the > call. An example fitting both these situations would be harrassing or > threatening collection calls. This part is OK. We do not screen outgoing articles, but if a student violates the published code of conduct, then disciplinary action can be taken. It is my opinion that having such procedures on the books serves to protect us from liability, unless we fail to take corrective action in the face of a complaint and a court holds us to be negligent. I believe it is a good idea for all sites to publish their access policies and to document the investigation and resolution of any complaints. ------ From: chip@ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) >>If anyone has problems with the policies of the NSF or the University of >>Washington, they don't have to include us in their distribution. > > Ha. Haha. If your site has a news feed, that means you're getting what you > asked for. You can always turn off the feed. Short of that, there's > nothing you or anyone else can do to control article content. There is a Distribution: line in the header. Unfortunately, RFC 1036 chose to make this line optional, and 95% of the articles we receive don't use it. Things would improve considerably if there was a distinction between "edu" and "non-edu" distributions. ------ From: brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) > Cutting groups to save money, if that's clearly the reason, is never > a problem. Cutting groups for *moral* reasons is a mistake. If > you ban alt.sex for moral reasons, then you have put yourself in the > postition of moral judge of your newsfeed. There is a third fundamental reason for pulling a group, namely "suitability of purpose". Academic sites cater to academic users, and there is a pedagogical advantage to presenting Usenet as an information database to be used as an instructional and research tool, much as the library is used. Some groups, e.g. alt.sex.*, are inconsistent with that aim. The library is not making any moral judgements by declining to buy pornographic literature and place it on the shelves; the same principle applies to decisions made on whether to carry certain newsgroups. I am puzzled by the fact that so few people in the audience seem to undersand this... > This hit the president of the University of Waterloo after he banned > rec.humor.funny. He was then pushed to ban a beauty pageant that rented > space each year in the theatre, as it was viewed as sexist by various groups. > > Before, he could have said that it wasn't the University's business to > judge the morals of productions in the theatre. But after banning the jokes, > nobody believed that stance. However, he could have banned rec.* and said it was because the rec groups are non-academic and thus not an appropriate use of University resources. This does not express any moral judgement; it stays within the realm of "suitability of purpose". He could even delegate the decision-making authority to someone else, e.g. a library administrator, who could pull RHF without comment and there would be no basis for an appeal on moral grounds. > This is the stance I take in rec.humor.funny. I never block material for > offensive content. If I did, and something I did let through offended > somebody (as always happens) then they *could* blame me as well as the > author for the offensiveness. So don't say anything about morals when editing. Say that you edit based on "personal judgement" and that the result is available on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. If some sites think RHF has too much "offensive" material, then another moderator can always propose rec.humor.safe and give people a choice. ------ From: brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) > So if you were the judge, and I only claimed a forgery months after the > fact, when the suit started, what would you rule? Remember, in civil > law, there is no concept of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." That's > a criminal law concept. In civil law, there just has to be a > preponderance of evidence for the plaintif's case. Exactly. > The deep-pocket concept scares me, too. Right now, USENET does not > contain much in the way of people who want to run out and sue, in spite > of what some people think. How many *actual suits* have been served? > We know none have gone to court. A suit would destroy portions of > the net, although not all, and for now most people seem to realize that > bringing a suit would not be in their best interests. The case I'm most worried about is the premeditated attempt to discredit an individual, say some occasionally vocal site admin, because someone else has an axe to grind. I care about my good name and reputation, and if someone launched an active campaign against me, then I would complain to other site admins, and if no action was taken, legal options would be considered. Sooner or later some visible net.person is going to be victimized and this scenario will be played out. ------ From: ed@uunet!dtgcube (Edward Jung) > OK, guys, now you're in trouble. I have been secretly culling the entire > transcript of this thread and have sold it for lucrative profit to the > producers of L.A. Law. You guys don't get a penny. LA Law is for status-symbol freaks and metapsychology weenies. I'm holding out for a guest shot on 60 Minutes. ------ Bill Newell Systems Analyst, Applications Consulting Group University of Washington WCN@MAX.U.WASHINGTON.EDU
ka@cs.washington.edu (Kenneth Almquist) (11/25/89)
chip@ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes: > 2. Any libel or copyright infringment suit would have to prove > authorship. Given the insecure nature of UUCP and NNTP, such proof > is impossible. > > 5. Sites that carry a newsgroup would probably be in a situation similar > to supermarkets that carry the National Enquirer. The Enquirer losing > a hypothetical libel suit doesn't make the supermarkets who carry it > liable. Of course, this is only one possible interpretation. It is only one possible interpretation, and in light of point number 2, I suspect that a judge would be very reluctant to accept it. While the supermarket cannot be sued, the National Enquirer can be. Given your assumption that the author of a USENET article cannot be identified, a more precise analogy would be if the printer of the National Enquirer refused to disclose the identity of the publisher and then argued that since the printer did not write the contents, the printer was not responsible for them. Any judge who accepted this argument would be turning the copyright and libel laws into a dead letter. Kenneth Almquist -- As for government "sending the wrong signal" by legalizing drugs: let's get serious. Anybody still looking to the government for moral authority is probably already on drugs.
bryden@vax1.acs.udel.EDU (Christopher F. Bryden) (11/25/89)
In article <> chip@ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes: }Ha. Haha. If your site has a news feed, that means you're getting what you }asked for. You can always turn off the feed. Short of that, there's }nothing you or anyone else can do to control article content. Say, doesn't some news software out there have something called fascism which will allow you to completely censor a person, site or domain? Sounds like control if you ask me. Chris -- bryden@vax1.acs.udel.edu ...{unidot,uunet}!cfg!udel!udccvax1!bryden Copyright 1989 Chris Bryden Permission granted for non-profit reproduction only. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It doesn't really matter because both of us will be dead eventually.
rick@pcrat.uucp (Rick Richardson) (11/25/89)
In article <52003@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: >I don't think the non-security of the net would be a great defence. >I can ignore the e-mail, but if X is serious he will then phone or >write a registered letter. If, after all this, I don't claim it's >a forgery (no suit has been served yet) that would be rather odd, would >it not? Hasn't there been a presumption in all this talk that the libeller is going to *LIE* under oath and claim he/she didn't write the article in question. I find it disgusting that every posting on this issue has made the assumption that people are going to be lying in court. The postings themselves aren't disgusting, just that they make the (correct?) assumption that most people these days are liars. Are we really living in a society which can't be trusted to tell the truth? (Rhetorical questions, no followups needed). -Rick -- Rick Richardson | Looking for FAX software for UNIX/386 ?????? mention PC Research,Inc.| WE'RE SHIPPING your uunet!pcrat!rick| Ask about FaxiX - UNIX Facsimile System (tm) FAX # (201) 389-8963 | Or JetRoff - troff postprocessor for the HP {Laser,Desk}Jet
chip@ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) (11/26/89)
According to brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton): >But if you cut something that's free, small in volume and high in >demand (like rec.humor.funny) then everybody knows that no matter what >you say about cost, you're doing it for moral reasons. Not necessarily. I might do it as a protest against the way the group is being run. Or because I don't like the moderator. Or because I dislike groups with three-part names. On the other hand, if I get a complaint about the contents of r.h.f and _then_ I yank it, that's another kettle of fish entirely. (BTW, before anyone asks: Yes, I carry r.h.f.) -- You may redistribute this article only to those who may freely do likewise. Chip Salzenberg at A T Engineering; <chip@ateng.com> or <uunet!ateng!chip> "Did I ever tell you the Jim Gladding story about the binoculars?"
tale@pawl.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) (11/26/89)
In <256C5F85.799@ateng.com> chip@ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
Chip> Ha. Haha. If your site has a news feed, that means you're
Chip> getting what you asked for. You can always turn off the feed.
Chip> Short of that, there's nothing you or anyone else can do to
Chip> control article content.
In <5122@udccvax1.acs.udel.EDU> bryden@vax1.acs.udel.EDU (Christopher Bryden):
Chris> Say, doesn't some news software out there have something called
Chris> fascism which will allow you to completely censor a person,
Chris> site or domain? Sounds like control if you ask me.
Then I won't ask you.
Say I went on some wild rampage, which would surely cause my job as
USENET admin for RPI to end, and decided that I would take Rick Adams
stats every two weeks and filter out incoming articles from the most
volumous posters. The words of Richard Sexton, Chuq von Rospach, Doug
Gwyn, Henry Spencer, et al, would all be thrown together to /dev/null.
Control? Yes. Not, though, in the way that Chip said and which you
rebutted. I have done nothing regarding article content.
Dave
--
(setq mail '("tale@pawl.rpi.edu" "tale@ai.mit.edu" "tale@rpitsmts.bitnet"))tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) (11/27/89)
In article <52003@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: >I don't think the non-security of the net would be a great defence. > >Let's say a [potentially actionable, apparently from me ] posting comes out... >Now if it's a forgery, I won't see it since it has my site in the path. >But I will see the e-mail and the posting... >I can ignore the e-mail, but if X is serious he will then phone or >write a registered letter. If, after all this, I don't claim it's ^^^^^^^^^^^ >a forgery (no suit has been served yet) that would be rather odd, would >it not? >Then the suit is served, and suddenly I say, "how do you know it's not >a forgery." ... *BZZT* reality check If you get a REGISTERED LETTER from someone over a posting they consider libellous, you will DAMN WELL repeat after me, "I never saw it. It is a forgery. If you want to talk further speak to my lawyer. Goodbye." If you wait till court to bring the subject up, you get what you deserve. The possibility of incompetent use to does not itself tarnish proof-of-authorship as a useful defense. -- 1955-1975: 36 Elvis movies. | Tom Neff 1975-1989: nothing. | tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET
chip@ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) (11/30/89)
According to wcn@max.u.washington.edu (W C Newell Jr): >If a publisher is explicitly identified, then the distribution agent is >protected from liability. Conversely, if no publisher is identified, the >distributor assumes legal responsibility for publication. Usenet articles do have identified publishers: the authors. (Remember, the legal definition of publishing only means "informing a third party".) A forged article does not _correctly_ identify the publisher, but that's unimportant to the Enquirer-Supermarket defense. >If the exact same article appears at sites A, B and C, then some transport >agent was used to distribute it. One can presume that this is true. However: >> Certainly no one at my site is filtering anything, at least not on an >> article level. > >Get real. LOTS of sites filter at the group level, for a variety of reasons. Of course. Read more carefully: No one filters at the _article_ level. As we are all so well aware, newsgroup name and article content are related only in the most peripheral and indirect way. Therefore, article content is not controlled by transmitting sites' choice of newsgroups. QED. >> If an employer articulates policies and procedures for the regulation of >> employee behavior in a certain area, then that employer has arguably assumed >> responsibility for behavior in that area. Case precedent has in many >> instances started with such voluntarily accepted responsiblity and imputed >> legal liability. > >Get seriously real. I already did. If you don't believe me, that's your problem. >Things would improve considerably if there was a distinction between "edu" >and "non-edu" distributions. I agree, though certainly for reasons different from yours. -- You may redistribute this article only to those who may freely do likewise. Chip Salzenberg at A T Engineering; <chip@ateng.com> or <uunet!ateng!chip> "The Usenet, in a very real sense, does not exist."