Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!plaid!chuq From: chuq%plaid@Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) Newsgroups: news.admin,misc.legal Subject: Re: Responsibility for postings. Message-ID: <30049@sun.uucp> Date: Mon, 5-Oct-87 18:07:39 EDT Article-I.D.: sun.30049 Posted: Mon Oct 5 18:07:39 1987 Date-Received: Thu, 8-Oct-87 07:23:44 EDT References: <378d6016.b8ab@apollo.uucp> <5261@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> <2050@kitty.UUCP> <2071@kitty.UUCP> <1544@homxc.UUCP> Sender: news@sun.uucp Reply-To: chuq@sun.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) Organization: Fictional Reality, uLtd Lines: 108 Xref: mnetor news.admin:1108 misc.legal:2987 [I'm going to regret this... ] >> "Actionable libel requires (1) defamation, (2) identification, and (3) >> publication". In the case of Usenet, only the SITE "publishes", not the >> author. Most libel suits name only the publisher as a defendant Problem one: identification. Prove that a given person posted a given posting. Think that is simple? I can name a number of ways to tracelessly forge postings. I do not believe it is possible to prove to the requirements of a court of law that ANYTHING happened on USENET, much less than any specific person did any given event. Problem two: publishing. Unless Larry knows of a precedent I don't know of, nobody has shown in a court of law that an electronic BBS or anything even remotely like USENET does any kind of publishing. It is just as likely that they would be considered a common carrier, in which the person doing the posting is liable, but not the folks carrying the material. Problem 3: precedent. Unless Larry is a lawyer specializing in communication and computer law and knows of some precedent setting cases that I haven't heard of, he's talking through his hat. According to a talk given by Susan Nycum (generally regarded as the top expert in computer law in the country) a couple of years ago at Usenix, nobody has any idea what to expect if something like this got to court. There is no holding precedent to base this stuff on. Larry is making generalizations that don't have any basis in fact. >> 1. Your site and your organization IS responsible for Usenet articles May be. It isn't proven (I wouldn't expect it to not be the case, though -- better conservative than sorry. Do YOU want to be the precedent setter?) >> (and any consequential damages resulting therefrom) that your users >> post. You do agree, do you not, that your site has a problem if >> users start posting the contents of say, /usr/src/uts/vax/? Well, Source code is a whole different issue, and is covered by Trade Secret agreements in your Source License that you signed your life away on. It has no bearing to 'normal' usenet postings. > What's the legal definition of >"publish", anyway ? Good question. Since usenet does not have any 'publish date' per se, and since usenet does not have an 'issue', and it is not copyrighted (except in specific articles) and it has no editor, editorial influence, publisher, publishing house/address or any organization at all, a good argument can be made that Usenet is not published. A (in my opinion, for what that's worth) better definition of usenet is a cooperative common carrier. Sort of like the community billboards in the student union. you certainly wouldn't hold Stanford liable for something J. Random Schizoid puts on their public corkboards, would you? Then again, maybe you would. I doubt a court would... > I suppose you might be able to make a case for AT&T being negligent >in letting mentally unstable individuals on the net, but you'd still have to >prove that the posting originated here.... This can't be done. I don't want to put proof out on the net, since it might come back to haunt us, but there are a number of ways to get around usenet security. >Then you'd have to prove that poster >actually posted it... See above. >Then you'd have to prove that we could have prevented it >from happening... Based on the design of the usenet software, this is impossible, of course, unless you can prove that the site should have known that the user was likely to do this kind of nasty libelous posting and refused them access to the net completely. That would be VERY hard to prove, by the way. >Then you'd have to prove that what was said was a lie... Probably the hardest part... Libel isn't nearly as easy as you think it is to prove. Thank Ghod. I don't know what would be worse; being the layer prosecuting a case like this, being the lawyer defending a case like this, or being the judge. we're talking major legalistic nightmare. Let's hope it never happens. [find side comment. I'm a layman, so while I've studied this stuff for years because of my tenure and interest in USENET, I can't be considered an expert. Except at ways of getting around USENET security. And I won't tell about that. Your mileage may vary. Consult tax attorney before investing] chuq -- Chuq Von Rospach chuq@sun.COM Editor, OtherRealms Delphi: CHUQ Bye bye life! Bye bye happiness! Hello, loneliness, I think I'm gonna die. Chuq Von Rospach chuq@sun.COM Editor, OtherRealms Delphi: CHUQ Bye bye life! Bye bye happiness! Hello, loneliness, I think I'm gonna die.