On Sun, 14 May 1995 17:39:49 -0300 (ADT), Rory Mc Greal wrote:
>The Copyright Sub-Committee of the Canadian Information Highway Advisory
>Council is recommending THAT owners of BBSs be held LIABLE for all
>postings on their boards.  I understand that the definition of BBS would
>include listservs, computer conferences, MOOs etc.
 
On Wednesday, 17 May, Murph Sewell, responded as follows:
I'm curious as to how Canada or the US would enfoce such a provision for
newsgroups, forums, whathave you that originate outside their borders (in
countries that agree that such a policy is absurd)?
 
Claims of copyright violation are civil, correct?  So, if someone wants to
protest copyright violation on a message received from a server halfway
around the world, pursuing the claim would be likely to cost more than a
damage award would net even if the pursuit is successful.
 
Who does one go after if the alleged violation was posted to a NETNEWS
group (as I understand it, those groups don't have a "location" in the
sense of a LISTSERV list)?
 
It strikes me that what the regulators are looking for here is a mechanism
for making it for more diffult than at present for copyright software
(whether Microsoft Weird or someone's interactive CD-ROM based novel) to be
made available from WAN servers.
 
  ***********************************************************************
 
    Like Murph I wonder how such a regulation could be enforced in the
international world of the Internet.  However I presume that the
regulation would apply to all lists that are either hosted on a computer
within the jurisdiction of the regulation or that have at least one
listowner within that jurisdiction. (I am focussing on the electronic
discussion list aspect of the posting).   If there were such a law in
the U.S. and Canada that would cover quite a large number of the English
speaking ones (even excluding those originating in the UK, Australia,
and New Zealand).
 
    I am less sure than Murph however that the impetus for this proposal
is concern about software being loaded without permission of the copyright
holder.   Rory said that he believed this liability provision was
based on a recommendation now being made in the US.   The impetus
for the American proposal was concern about obscenity on the 'Net.
 
     As a listowner I am strongly opposed to this proposal.  My
list is focused on professional matters and the tone of discourse
is generally quite civil.  The list is semi-moderated (postings
by subscribers are distributed without human review but postings
submitted by non-subscribers are reviewed by one of the owners
before being sent on to the list; this involves only 1-3 of the
20-60 postings distributed daily).
 
    If I were to be held personally responsible for everything
posted to the list I would have to reconsider whether or not I
could keep it going.  It would be much too time-consuming.  I am
also concerned about the self-censoring tendancy that would be
sure to occur; when in doubt I probably would decide not to forward
for posting.
 
    That assumes that the host site would still be willing to act
as host under such conditions.  I believe that a number of sites
would give up hosting all but the most local, administratively/
academically oriented lists.
 
    Whether the concern is copyright or obscenity or anything else,
the proposed remedy is too broad for the purpose intended.
 
Judith Hopkins, Listowner of [log in to unmask]
  Internet: [log in to unmask]
  Bitnet:   ulcjh@ubvm