allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery) (11/10/89)
As quoted from <396@cs.nps.navy.mil> by jxxl@acrux (John Locke): +--------------- | In article <X> allbery@ncoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery) writes: | >If DEC or AT&T or (God forbid) UUNET were hit with a | >lawsuit as a result of something on the Usenet, that would be *it*. Not only | >would the affected company yank its net access, but other companies would | >likely do the same in order to avoid possible future lawsuits. And the Usenet | >would die. | | It seems equally likely that DEC or AT&T or (God forbid) UUNET would fight | back and boot the litigious scum into bankruptcy after a brief detour through +--------------- UUNET, possibly, since it is a for-pay Usenet support system. However, DEC and AT&T have better things to do with their money than support the Usenet -- and corporate bean-counters would jump at the chance to lower phone bills and/or free up system resources in one fell swoop. ++Brandon -- Brandon S. Allbery allbery@NCoast.ORG, BALLBERY (MCI Mail), ALLBERY (Delphi) uunet!hal.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery ncoast!allbery@hal.cwru.edu bsa@telotech.uucp *(comp.sources.misc mail to comp-sources-misc[-request]@backbone.site, please)* *Third party vote-collection service: send mail to allbery@uunet.uu.net (ONLY)* >>> The *.aquari* debate: news.groups gone news.playpen <<<
lucio@flagship.UUCP (Lucio) (11/11/89)
In article <1989Nov8.175854.1586@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > In article <758@tijc02.UUCP> pjs269@tijc02.UUCP (Paul Schmidt) writes: > >It seems to me the only reasonable legal decision that could come from a > >law-suit is that only the poster would be liable for any damages. Each > > ... The phone company is not required to control > the content of phone conversations, and cannot be sued over them; it is > a "common carrier". Is Usenet a common carrier? *Good Question*. > > ... You do not become a common carrier > by declaring yourself to be one, UUNET's declarations notwithstanding; > you become one if the courts and/or the legislatures say you are one. Perhaps it is possible to create a legal precedent by one (ficticious) suit being brought to a fairly relevant US court; the two parties would have to fork out the legal cost, but in collusion ought to be able to swing the decision in favour of the DESIRED outcome, probably the declaration of Usenet a common carrier. Anybody got a better idea? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Lucio de Re ...uunet!ddsw1!olsa99!flagship!lucio -------------------- plan to throw THIS one away ------ lucio@flagship