greg@lawnet.LawNet.Com (Gregory G. Petersen) (06/15/89)
In article <2335@etive.ed.ac.uk> jha@lfcs.ed.ac.uk (Jamie Andrews) writes: >In article <3305@epimass.EPI.COM> jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) writes: > Conversely, I think Brad's other activities are constantly >stretching the boundaries of netiquette. I find particularly >repellent his proposal to exploit the wide availability of >netnews software by distributing HisOwnService with that >protocol. No, it's not different in kind from many things that >have been done before on Usenet -- just in scope. I hope that >if Brad makes profits with his Compuserve/ClariNet schemes, and >if Usenet ever is hit with one of these threatened lawsuits, >that Brad will recognize where the origins of his Usenet profits >lie, and support the community of the net that has contributed >to his success. > Disreegarding the merits of Brad's scheme, I am concerned by the question raised "if Usenet ever is hit with one of these threatened lawsuits" -- what threatened lawsuits? Usenet, as I understand it IS NOT a corporation, association, entity, or any other type of group which can be SUED as such -- or am I incorrect in my understanding? If someone has threatened to sue "Usenet it raises interesting questions about the organization/entity status. For the record I would take the position that Usenet is the name given to a series of independent agreements of connectivity which agreements are between independently owned and operated systems which are directly connected (in some manner) with each other. I would also take the postion that Usenet, as a name given to that series of independent contractual relationship, which has developed its own "industrial" customs, does not create a sui juris entity, or any rights, promises or liablities beyond those made between those entered into between independent systems who agree to allow the mutual connections between systems. Thus my preliminary thought would be that Usenet, as such, cannot be sued. I certainly would be interested in any views to the contrary since I may not be aware of historical facts that render that opinion incorrect. If there is any interest I will post the responses in summary form. -- Gregory G. Petersen, Esq. greg@lawnet.LawNet.Com Petersen & Trott, A Law Corporation (714) 971-1441 770 The City Drive South, Suite 2100 Orange, California 92668
jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) (06/20/89)
In article <309@lawnet.LawNet.Com> greg@.LawNet.Com (Gregory G. Petersen)
writes an article including the line
"In article <3305@epimass.EPI.COM> jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) writes:"
but nothing in the article in question was by me. Please, let's be
careful with attributions, especially since I disagreed with most of
the quoted article. Specifically, I have no concerns about ClariNet
and don't think it will bring about lawsuits or The Death of The Net
As We Know It.
--
-- Joe Buck jbuck@epimass.epi.com, uunet!epimass.epi.com!jbuckdricejb@drilex.UUCP (Craig Jackson drilex1) (07/22/89)
I think this one is quite clear: Since Usenet exists only in concept, and
it is not legal entity, it cannot be sued. However, legal entities which
are vital to Usenet today, such as Uunet, major universities, and major
corporations, can certainly be sued. Uunet is particularly vulnerable, since
it exists primarily to serve Usenet.
However, I'm sure that the Uunet folks have done their legal homework, and
believe that their legal risks are acceptable.
--
Craig Jackson
{bbn,ll-xn,axiom,redsox,atexnet,ka3ovk}!drilex!{dricej,dricejb}