When Richard Masoner wrote,
| > IANAL, but if the list is unmoderated all you are doing is providing a
| > free-speech forum. You are not acting as an editor, and thus you are
| > protected from liability. Only the person posting -- the copyright
| > violator -- is liable.
Chuq Von Rospach replied,
| In theory, ti's a nice theory. In practice, I know of a number of
| mailing lists that have been shut down over copyright issues, after the
| list owner was notified of the infractions and chose not to stop them.
That, in my view (IANALE), is the key: "after the list owner was notified
... and chose not to stop them." One copyright violation goes through
your unmoderated list, you swear you had no idea that such a thing could
happen, and perhaps you get off scot-free. But then you have then seen that
there is a problem that you can stop, but you choose to take no action, and
your list distributes a second copyright violation.
You could have made the list moderated after the first incident, but by not
closing the barn door before another horse is stolen, you can't use that
defense the second time.
James Armstrong has determined that he hasn't the extra time necessary for
moderating the list, and the list is already violating copyrights. He'll
have to decide among finding the time to moderate the list, finding a
moderator (and perhaps a new listowner) for it, closing the list, or taking
the risks of being held responsible for the ongoing copyright violations.
