evan@telly.UUCP (Evan Leibovitch) (02/13/89)
Anyone who has categorized the r.h.f. debate as 'Brad bashers' versus
'Brad boosters' has totally missed the point.
So far nobody here has criticized Brad's ability to accomplish his basic
intent - to moderate a newsgroup which was, for the most part, funny.
There have been many critics of the particular steps Brad took. Some
have called for votes to remove him. Others have rallied to his defence,
treating criticism of Brad's tactics as personal attack.
The issue Brad raised is real. But let's deal with it broadly, as a
problem which can affect ANY newsgroup. I've been in e-mail contact
with one moderator since this started, who personlly has genuine fears
about legal attacks - libel, pornography, even passing state secrets.
It would strike me that being sued by a corporation which has been
slammed on the net, or prosecuted by the father of a 12-year-old caught
reading alt.sex, would be even less pleasant than what Brad had to
suffer. And all the 'read at your own risk' messages in the world would
not necessarily keep this from happening. Keeping certain groups off
'revenue-producing' sites won't prevent it, either.
I suggest that it would be far more productive for the net to implement
*protective* measures, than to tackle individual problems as they occur.
To this end, I would like to suggest the following:
I believe that the net should draft and approve (by vote) a document to
be signed and/or agreed-to by every user reading news. The document would
be kept on file by the site granting the news-reading account.
This document, written in clear English but valid in court, would include
the following provisions, applicable for ALL newsgroups;
- Liability for all postings rests with the author ALONE. Sites and
individuals (moderators) involved in the distribution process assume NO
responsibility for the content of any postings, including (but not
limited to) any losses arising from the attempted use of software
(in source or binary form) distributed over the net;
- Full notice that some postings may be considered offensive on ethnic,
sexual or other grounds. Though people posting such content may try to
warn of this by using subject lines or encryption, no guarantees are
provided regarding the reliability of such warnings (or lack thereof);
- Though authors may explicitly claim various legal rights to their work,
they alone are responsible for enforcing such rights.
- Anything posted on the network is assumed to have the author's consent
for unlimited electronic distribution. No author may restrict the
availability of a posting beyond the normal distribution for the
appropriate newsgroup.
- An individual's right to read Usenet news is a privilege, not a right,
and may be revoked at any time.
By now I hope you understand what I'm getting at. This document offers
a number of comforts and legal defences to the net and its elements:
- Warning, BEFORE THE FACT, that the net contains naughty bits;
- Protection for all sites along the way, plus moderators, if another
net reader has a complaint about a specific posting;
- Notice to posters that they, *and they alone*, may be held liable for
what they submit to the net. (This may help stop some of the worst
postings from ever getting sent). Individual postings may claim
rights or deny liabilities over and above what's covered above;
- No other changes to net etiquette, software, or procedures are needed.
No site has to ask permission for anything, an nobody has to worry
about whether or not they're allowed to feed something to another site.
As you may notice, none of this mentions anything to do with 'making
money off the net', and that is deliberate.
The above document would leave anybody to declare any kind of copyright,
trade secret or whatever in their postings, as long as they understand
that they can't restrict the distribution of their work.
I would suggest that any organization which *would* want to restrict
redistribution of postings (including real commercial sites like BIX
and CIS) would find Usenet unacceptable, and would be unable to
adhere to the spirit of this document.
One of the REAL benefits of this scheme is that it need not even be
universally accepted! Let's say many sites implement this document
but, say, MIT refuses. A student there sees an offensive posting in
a moderated group and complains. The "defendants" (legal or otherwise)
can point to the document as a good-faith attempt to deal with this
problem, and some of the blame would fall on MIT. (Some blame would
come to them, even without the document.)
I understand that the greatest problem in making this work is the
huge number of people already reading the net, and the bureaucratic
headaches of administering it. Even if it's not made retroactive,
and just new users had to comply, it would still be a step forward.
Most sites have a local group which almost everyone subscribes to,
in which notices of this type can be made for existing readers.
Or send them mail. Whatever...
Anyway, enough hot air for now. I would suggest a netwide effort in
drafting the document, a vote on the final wording, and then its
regular broadcast in news.announce.newusers. If the idea is rejected,
I will draft it myself, implement it unilaterally for all users on
this site, and make it available to anyone who wants it.
Thanks for reading this far. I realize the subject may be getting
tiresome. But I, like Brad, believe it needs to be addressed.
PS. Yes, there are elements of this that are borrowed from many
previous postings, including Brad's original policies. All are
recognized and appreciated.
--
___________________________________________________________________________
Evan Leibovitch, SA of System Telly, located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
evan@telly.on.ca / {uunet!attcan,utzoo}!telly!evan
You can lead a fish to water, but you have to walk really fast or he'll diesmb@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com (Steven M. Bellovin) (02/14/89)
In article <518@telly.UUCP>, evan@telly.UUCP (Evan Leibovitch) writes: } I believe that the net should draft and approve (by vote) a document to } be signed and/or agreed-to by every user reading news. How do you propose to do this? And what makes you think it has any legal utility whatsoever? Disclaimers are quite often legally meaningless.
john@stiatl.UUCP (John DeArmond) (02/14/89)
In article <518@telly.UUCP> evan@telly.UUCP (Evan Leibovitch) writes: > >Anyone who has categorized the r.h.f. debate as 'Brad bashers' versus >'Brad boosters' has totally missed the point. Glad someone said that. I'm the one who volunteered (and still do) to start a legal defense fund for Brad. At the same time, I've strongly bashed his crazy idea of copyrights and net.control and such. >I suggest that it would be far more productive for the net to implement >*protective* measures, than to tackle individual problems as they occur. >To this end, I would like to suggest the following: > >I believe that the net should draft and approve (by vote) a document to >be signed and/or agreed-to by every user reading news. The document would >be kept on file by the site granting the news-reading account. > >This document, written in clear English but valid in court, would include >the following provisions, applicable for ALL newsgroups; > You obviously put a lot of thought into your "agreement" but unfortunately, you are a bit niave as to the workings of US contract law, under which this would fall. The first and probably fatal problem is that this "agreement", like shrink-wrapped licenses, is an unilateral agreement NOT agreed to by it's targeted audience. Subject to who has the deepest pockets, shrink-wrap licenses are not worth the paper they're written on. Consider if you will, despite the zillions of software packagges out there today, most containing shrink-wrap licenses, only ONE case of violation has ever gone to trial (Quaid v. Vault) and the plantiffs LOST. Lotus and some other large houses have bullied some violators with their lawyers but invariably the case is settled out of court. Courts generally look at actions and intent when assesing liability. If a moderator of a group merely serves as a coordinator and facilitator, his liability is nil. If on the other hand, he claims compilation copyrights and rights of control of distribution, then he will assume much MORE liability than before. The courts weigh actions vs gain and in this case the gain is increased power and recognition which are just as tangable as money. If I were a moderator, I'd sit back very quietly, never engage in flame-fests and add little or no value to the postings other than culling and reformatting. Even something as simple as correcting grammar could lead to liability if the correction changed the meaning and caused an action. Understand that I'm not a lawyer but I have experienced these conditions in suits. It's likely that a public "agreement" such as you mentioned would be barred as heresay. But let's do a reality check. The net is working fine as it is. The benevolent anarchy is functioning well. Most JEDR-type people are simply flamed and then ignored. In JEDR's particular case, what we should have done is paid him a friendly visit, broken his knees and that would have been that. At the very least, a slander and defamation suit - prosecuted by Brad and supported and paid for by the net.contributors - would have sent a strong message to those who would get malicious and involve outsiders. In reality, JEDR will pay and pay and pay. Is there ANYBODY on the net that would even consider hiring this guy? I thought not. So in reality, things will work out OK. JEDR will remain under-employed, Brad is doing a reality check and will get back to being funny instead of obnoxous, and the net will lumber on and hopefully, we'll leave the lawyers where they belong - looking up to see the whale sh*t. John -- John De Armond, WD4OQC | Manual? ... What manual ?!? Sales Technologies, Inc. Atlanta, GA | This is Unix, My son, You ...!gatech!stiatl!john | just GOTTA Know!!!
evan@telly.UUCP (Evan Leibovitch) (02/15/89)
In article <3113@stiatl.UUCP> john@stiatl.UUCP (John DeArmond) writes: >In article <518@telly.UUCP> evan@telly.UUCP (Evan Leibovitch) writes: >>I believe that the net should draft and approve (by vote) a document to >>be signed and/or agreed-to by every user reading news. The document would ^^^^^^ >>be kept on file by the site granting the news-reading account. >You obviously put a lot of thought into your "agreement" but unfortunately, >you are a bit niave as to the workings of US contract law, under which >this would fall. The first and probably fatal problem is that this >"agreement", like shrink-wrapped licenses, is an unilateral agreement NOT >agreed to by it's targeted audience. I agree that a unilateral 'contract' may be little more than a warning with few legal teeth. That's why, as an OPTION, a site can print up the document and require a participant's signature on it before allowing newsreading. Certainly, a signed, witnessed contract of this type would hold some weight. But I recognize that some sites will bristle at the thought of the paperwork, or tracking own longtime users who may refuse to sign anything. For them, the posting in news.announce, more as a precaution than as an enforcable contract. Better something than nothing. >Subject to who has the deepest pockets, shrink-wrap licenses are not ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >worth the paper they're written on. How deep are the net's pockets? You may be willing to gamble that the net will rush to your defence, financially and otherwise, if you get sued. I won't take that risk. >Courts generally look at actions and intent when assesing liability. >If a moderator of a group merely serves as a coordinator and facilitator, >his liability is nil. I wouldn't trust a court/newspaper/human-rights-commission to agree with that assumption. Just ask Brad. The document would help clarify that. It would also assist in fending off non-legal attacks such as JEDR's. >If on the other hand, he claims compilation copyrights >and rights of control of distribution, then he will assume much MORE >liability than before. Agreed. That's the basic premise behind why I proposed an alternative to Brad's actions. >Understand that I'm not a lawyer but I have experienced these conditions >in suits. It's likely that a public "agreement" such as you mentioned >would be barred as heresay. Even if it was signed by the complainant, and witnessed? >But let's do a reality check. The net is working fine as it is. The >benevolent anarchy is functioning well. Most JEDR-type people are simply >flamed and then ignored. In JEDR's particular case, what we should have >done is paid him a friendly visit, broken his knees and that would have >been that. At the very least, a slander and defamation suit - prosecuted >by Brad and supported and paid for by the net.contributors - would have >sent a strong message to those who would get malicious and involve >outsiders. Let's do a reality check on the reality check. I think you are dreaming if you think that 'net.contributors' would pay Brad's whole way in a protracted cross-border slander suit which he likely wouldn't win. The net is growing and changing whether you like it or not. I attempted to deal with a very real potential problem. I still say the net now has NO protection, and though I don't agree with Brad's methods in this matter, I agree wholeheartedly with his motivations. In another posting in this group, someone suggests that things said here about Compuserve could be considered libellous. Certainly Alamo Rent-A-Car could see themselves as being damaged by postings in misc.consumers. Do you want to pretend FOREVER that this is only all hypothetical? >Is there ANYBODY >on the net that would even consider hiring [JEDR]? I thought not. So what? I would think that most people with hiring power have never heard of the net. Big punishment. >So in reality, things will work out OK. I honestly hope you're right, and that nothing happens. But I want to be ready in case it does. You build your house out of straw - I'll use bricks. >hopefully, we'll leave the lawyers >where they belong - looking up to see the whale sh*t. I'm sure that's what Fox Software thought, too. Hoping the lawyers - and media, and public enquiries, and public opinion itself - will stay away, doesn't keep them away. -- Evan Leibovitch, SA of System Telly, located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario evan@telly.on.ca / {uunet!attcan,utzoo}!telly!evan You can lead a herring to water, but you have to walk really fast or he'll die