Path: utzoo!attcan!telly!evan From: evan@telly.UUCP (Evan Leibovitch) Newsgroups: news.admin Subject: Re: Covering the net's behind Message-ID: <546@telly.UUCP> Date: 14 Feb 89 17:23:02 GMT References: <518@telly.UUCP> <3113@stiatl.UUCP> Lines: 99 In article <3113@stiatl.UUCP> john@stiatl.UUCP (John DeArmond) writes: >In article <518@telly.UUCP> evan@telly.UUCP (Evan Leibovitch) writes: >>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. >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. I agree that a unilateral 'contract' may be little more than a warning with few legal teeth. That's why, as an OPTION, a site can print up the document and require a participant's signature on it before allowing newsreading. Certainly, a signed, witnessed contract of this type would hold some weight. But I recognize that some sites will bristle at the thought of the paperwork, or tracking own longtime users who may refuse to sign anything. For them, the posting in news.announce, more as a precaution than as an enforcable contract. Better something than nothing. >Subject to who has the deepest pockets, shrink-wrap licenses are not ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >worth the paper they're written on. How deep are the net's pockets? You may be willing to gamble that the net will rush to your defence, financially and otherwise, if you get sued. I won't take that risk. >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. I wouldn't trust a court/newspaper/human-rights-commission to agree with that assumption. Just ask Brad. The document would help clarify that. It would also assist in fending off non-legal attacks such as JEDR's. >If on the other hand, he claims compilation copyrights >and rights of control of distribution, then he will assume much MORE >liability than before. Agreed. That's the basic premise behind why I proposed an alternative to Brad's actions. >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. Even if it was signed by the complainant, and witnessed? >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. Let's do a reality check on the reality check. I think you are dreaming if you think that 'net.contributors' would pay Brad's whole way in a protracted cross-border slander suit which he likely wouldn't win. The net is growing and changing whether you like it or not. I attempted to deal with a very real potential problem. I still say the net now has NO protection, and though I don't agree with Brad's methods in this matter, I agree wholeheartedly with his motivations. In another posting in this group, someone suggests that things said here about Compuserve could be considered libellous. Certainly Alamo Rent-A-Car could see themselves as being damaged by postings in misc.consumers. Do you want to pretend FOREVER that this is only all hypothetical? >Is there ANYBODY >on the net that would even consider hiring [JEDR]? I thought not. So what? I would think that most people with hiring power have never heard of the net. Big punishment. >So in reality, things will work out OK. I honestly hope you're right, and that nothing happens. But I want to be ready in case it does. You build your house out of straw - I'll use bricks. >hopefully, we'll leave the lawyers >where they belong - looking up to see the whale sh*t. I'm sure that's what Fox Software thought, too. Hoping the lawyers - and media, and public enquiries, and public opinion itself - will stay away, doesn't keep them away. -- Evan Leibovitch, SA of System Telly, located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario evan@telly.on.ca / {uunet!attcan,utzoo}!telly!evan You can lead a herring to water, but you have to walk really fast or he'll die