Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uflorida!gatech!emcard!stiatl!john From: john@stiatl.UUCP (John DeArmond) Newsgroups: news.admin Subject: Re: Covering the net's behind Message-ID: <3113@stiatl.UUCP> Date: 13 Feb 89 17:07:56 GMT References: <518@telly.UUCP> Reply-To: john@stiatl.UUCP (John DeArmond) Organization: Sales Technologies Inc., Atlanta, GA Lines: 70 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!!!