dan lester wrote:
>I doubt it has been tested in court, but if the owner/editor of a moderated
>list allowed it, knowing what it was, then I'd say he's liable. Of course
>that is also a reason for having an unmoderated list. And that is also a
>reason that ISPs won't claim to control or know everything on their
>servers. Of course if they're warned that kiddyporn is on the server, and
>do nothing, that's different too. As always, I'm not a lawyer and don't
>even play one on the tube or in the bar.
>
Because of the type of list that I do - a list about a singer/songwriter
that's gated to/from a usenet newsgroup, the potential for
copyright violation is high.
The legal advice that I've rec'd is that the list should be moderated
in order to attempt to keep certain potential copyright violations
that appear on the newsgroup off of the associated gated list.
I'm told that I should actively prevent certain activities, and do
that too, by posting a list of activities not allowed on the list, in
the usage guidelines file which each new subscriber receives.
The alternative - not moderating - isn't realistic. The problem
is that letting everything through, without review, doesn't *really*
take the listowner out of the picture. For example, if I add an address
to my filters and re PUT the list's header, I'm *actively* intervening
in running the list.
The question then becomes: Why am I *not* intervening in things
that are obviously not legal?
I'm told that to be on the safe side - and to make it absolutely
apparent that I'm at least *trying* to avoid being part of a scheme
to distribute copyrighted material - that the list should be moderated,
with definite rules which disallow blatant copyright violations.
That's the way my lawyer sees it anyway.
BTW, the way I see the copyright laws is this: If an artist creates
a work, he should be allowed to profit from it for his lifetime,
and should be allowed to pass on any future profits to his heirs.
As long as he and his heirs renew copyright protection as it becomes
necessary, it seems discriminatory at best to demand that the artist
give up his rights to pass on to his heirs that which he's earned in
the free market. Does any other occupation demand this?
Maureen
:-)
|
