Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!henry From: henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) Newsgroups: news.stargate Subject: Re: Stargate bullshit Message-ID: <7876@utzoo.UUCP> Date: Sat, 4-Apr-87 20:55:43 EST Article-I.D.: utzoo.7876 Posted: Sat Apr 4 20:55:43 1987 Date-Received: Sat, 4-Apr-87 20:55:43 EST References: <103@stargate.UUCP> <301@gaia.UUCP> <759@looking.UUCP> <1913@hoptoad.uucp> Organization: U of Toronto Zoology Lines: 100 > "The Stargate Project" (i.e. Lauren) had to decide a few years ago > whether they wanted to be a post office or a magazine, a phone company > or a radio station, e.g. whether they wanted to just carry information > for other people, or to organize and "own" and be liable for their > information. > > For some reason, still a mystery to me, he chose the magazine/radio station/ > ownership route, even when the lawyer hired by Usenix said that this > was the route with worse legal liability... [Caveat: I have no official affiliation with Stargate, although I believe what follows approximately reflects their views.] The problem is that Lauren/etc. did not "decide" to go this route; they were forced into it. You cannot become a common carrier or a broadcaster by saying that you are one; you become one by acting like one. If you are the manager of a radio station and you start broadcasting 24-hour porn, you cannot defend yourself against the Feds by declaring yourself a common carrier; the courts will say you are a broadcaster and are responsible for what you broadcast. The problem with Stargate is that nobody knows whether it is a common carrier or a broadcaster. Like Usenet, as the Usenix lawyer said, it is a gray area where there is no law and no precedent sufficient to settle the matter. This means that there is a significant probability that legal action would find Stargate to be a broadcaster, responsible for content. Since Stargate is intended as a useful service which must try to avoid expensive litigation -- not a legal test case which deliberately tries to provoke it -- it has to assume the worst, i.e. that it *will* be held responsible for what it transmits. The other side of this is that a serious lawsuit would probably destroy a small outfit like Stargate regardless of who was in the right. Again, the objective is a service, not a test case. So Stargate must act in such a manner as to reduce the probability of lawsuits, by being careful what it transmits. > Meanwhile, Stargate has continued to be promoted as a cheaper, better > way to do Usenet -- a next generation information network for the > folks who currently have Usenet. It is *not* that... I don't think anyone who gets news long-distance will dispute the "cheaper" part. As for "better", to me and many others that means, in particular, "more selective about content". I am not entirely happy with some of the things Stargate is doing, but I don't see the great betrayal. ... Now, the whole backbone > could desert to 'encourage' us to sign up for Stargate, but if the FCC > doesn't manage to kill PC Pursuit, we can set up another backbone in > short order. If I weren't unhappy about the chaos that the transition would cause for fun groups like rec.arts.comics, I would seriously suggest that the backbone take a six-month vacation and let you try. If it worked, we'd be off the hook permanently (HOORAY!), and if it didn't, it would be educational for you and others. > It doesn't cost "The Stargate Project" any more to supply the information > to a million sites than it does to supply it to ten sites... Any identifiable central point that isn't careful about what it sends can have costs of infinity, i.e. bankruptcy caused by lawsuits. > The original goals of the project have gotten lost in the accounting. Lauren has been saying "high quality, selective transmission, moderation, legal responsibility" all along. When did these "original goals" come up? > If "The Stargate Project" said "we are now beginning transmission of > the entire unedited Usenet feed, here is where you can buy decoders, > pass it on like you do now, please send us 1/10th of the money you save > on phone bills, honor system" would it survive or not? Probably not. My understanding is that such "shareware" honor-system arrangements are increasingly financial failures even in areas like software production where there aren't major ongoing expenses. (Remember that Stargate will *not* be getting its vertical-interval time free forever.) Have you priced libel/liability insurance for the venture you suggest? (Actually, I suspect the insurers' reaction would be "forget it".) > I don't know, > but I prefer that experiment (which is what I thought we were doing > here) to a "BYTE magazine of the airwaves"... John, have you ever priced vertical-interval time? Lauren is not running an "experiment"; he is trying to build something useful out of a unique opportunity -- a satellite uplink company that is interested in the idea and is willing to give us a big break. If you remember Lauren's original description, he was hoping for cheap/free vertical-interval time from one of the religious broadcasters or somebody along those lines. That idea had to be abandoned; even the religious broadcasters and PBS know that every dollar they get from selling VI time is a dollar they don't have to get from donors. He was very lucky that Southern Satellite was taken with the idea, and we are not out of the woods yet by any means. This is a unique chance, one we dare not blow on a "great experiment", given that our current network is most unlikely to survive another five years of expansion. -- "We must choose: the stars or Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology the dust. Which shall it be?" {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry