webber@klinzhai.RUTGERS.EDU (Webber) (04/26/87)
In article <2928@well.UUCP>, mjr@well.UUCP (Matthew Rapaport) writes: > > In sympathy with both points of view here, would it not be acceptable to > all concerned if Stargate did what it set out to do by feeding the > moderated newsgroups and offloading them from the phone based net. ... Ah, but that wasn't how it all started. People were initially interested in `stargate-like' projects as a way of cutting down on the overall cost of usenet. Now we find that the people who went off to investigate the situation are using their position of superior knowledge and influence to restrict who can benefit from this service. (Yes I know this sort of thing happens in corporate board rooms and the halls of government, but there is no need for it here.) There is no technical reason to do this. All bits look alike to the i/o channels. There is no legal reason to do this. If it is illegal to broadcast a particular message over a satellite link, then it is doubtless illegal to broadcast it over phone links or over networks in public universities and companies. Anyway, there is no degree of moderation that can prevent you from eventually being sued. After all, newspapers with paid legal counsel still get sued and sometimes loose. All the moderator can do is help split the cost of the lawyer that will defend him and the other parties in the suit. -------------------- BOB (webber@aramis.rutgers.edu ; BACKBONE!topaz!webber)
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (04/27/87)
> ... There is no legal reason to do this. If it is illegal > to broadcast a particular message over a satellite link, then it is > doubtless illegal to broadcast it over phone links or over networks > in public universities and companies... Unfortunately, there *is* a legal reason to do it: real, true broadcasts and point-to-point phone calls are *not* identical in the eyes of the law. There is a lot of uncertainty as to just how Stargate would be treated if it came to a court case, but it resembles a radio broadcast a whole lot more than it resembles a phone system. To the extent that your argument holds water at all, what it shows is that our current scheme is legally dubious: if what we are doing is truly broadcasting, then laws about libel etc. most assuredly do apply, and the only thing that saves us is the lack of any central organization to be sued. > Anyway, there is no degree of > moderation that can prevent you from eventually being sued. After > all, newspapers with paid legal counsel still get sued... Actually, there is nothing that can prevent you from eventually being sued, especially in the US. However, you do have a choice between trying to discourage people from doing so, or sticking your neck out and hoping that nobody will chop it off. The people behind Stargate evidently don't consider either their necks or Stargate's to be expendable. I would expect that Stargate would eventually have paid legal counsel, by the way. See above comments on central organizations: any visible central point is just asking for lawsuits, and does have to be prepared for the possibility. -- "If you want PL/I, you know Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology where to find it." -- DMR {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry
lyndon@ncc.UUCP (Lyndon Nerenberg) (04/30/87)
> Unfortunately, there *is* a legal reason to do it: real, true broadcasts > and point-to-point phone calls are *not* identical in the eyes of the law. > There is a lot of uncertainty as to just how Stargate would be treated if > it came to a court case, but it resembles a radio broadcast a whole lot > more than it resembles a phone system. No more so than a point to point microwave link resembles a radio broadcast. In many ways, Stargate is similar to Pay TV. The material you see distributed over a pay channel (sort of equivelent to a point to point link in that two identifiable parties contract to exchange the information) would cause a *lot* of hassle for the management of a broadcast TV station in relation to the laws on transmission of "obscene" material. The term "broadcast" has a very different *legal* meaning than the term "transmit" when you are talking about communications law. A "broadcaster" (in the radio example) is making information available to the public without entering into a contractual obligation with that public for specific identifiable reception of that information.