At 15:23 4/26/2001 -0400, you wrote:
>At 11:45 AM -0700 4/26/01, Joe Wagner imposed structure on a stream of
>electrons, yielding:
>
> From Bill Cole [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>>>>This is similar to what happened a few years ago with newsfeeds. The
>>>>courts position was the same, "All or none." Either the ISP filters
>>>>newsfeeds and becomes responsible for ALL posts on ALL groups or they
>>>>don't filter any news and are not responsible for any posts on any groups.
>>>
>>>cite please. I try to keep up on such things (especially as regards
>>>news) and know of no case that had that clear a distinction made.
>>It wasn't news feeds per se but was news/discussion groups. From:
>>http://www.jmls.edu/cyber/1997/reports/torts.html
>>"[snip]The two major cases in this area are Cubby, Inc. v. Compuserve,
>>Inc., 776 F. Supp. 135 (S.D.N.Y. 1991), and Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v.
>>Prodigy Services Co., (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 24, 1995), motion for renewal
>>denied, 24 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1126, 1995 WL 805178 (Dec. 11, 1995).
>
>Frankly, I think statements like the one I was responding to are
>irresponsible. Even if one assumes that the Cubby and Stratton Oakmont
>cases would be applied as precedent to news (dubious) they don't support
>such a sharp line for what a news provider can do safely.
At 15:23 4/26/2001 -0400, you wrote:
>At 11:45 AM -0700 4/26/01, Joe Wagner imposed structure on a stream of
>electrons, yielding:
>
> From Bill Cole [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>>>>This is similar to what happened a few years ago with newsfeeds. The
>>>>courts position was the same, "All or none." Either the ISP filters
>>>>newsfeeds and becomes responsible for ALL posts on ALL groups or they
>>>>don't filter any news and are not responsible for any posts on any groups.
>>>
>>>cite please. I try to keep up on such things (especially as regards
>>>news) and know of no case that had that clear a distinction made.
>>It wasn't news feeds per se but was news/discussion groups. From:
>>http://www.jmls.edu/cyber/1997/reports/torts.html
>>"[snip]The two major cases in this area are Cubby, Inc. v. Compuserve,
>>Inc., 776 F. Supp. 135 (S.D.N.Y. 1991), and Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v.
>>Prodigy Services Co., (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 24, 1995), motion for renewal
>>denied, 24 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1126, 1995 WL 805178 (Dec. 11, 1995).
>
>All of the largest news providers do SOME sort of filtering on the feeds
>into their reader systems.
Like what, exactly? I mean, I suspect (but only _suspect_) that
uswest/qwest intentionally drops parts of muli-part binaries, but I don't
have any way of proving it without spending far more time than I care to.
>Frankly, I think statements like the one I was responding to are
>irresponsible. Even if one assumes that the Cubby and Stratton Oakmont
>cases would be applied as precedent to news (dubious) they don't support
>such a sharp line for what a news provider can do safely.
I used to be involved with a public access unix server that looked very
carefully into the newsfeed issue. This was about the same time as the
Compuserve case, and there was another case about that time which I cannot
find (perhaps it was settled?). As well as another incident (though I
don't believe the courts were involved) which involved someone who was
offended by the group alt.soc.culture.muslim.moss (or something like that),
a newsgroup for homosexual muslims, and wanted the group removed. Heck, it
might not have even been an alt. group.
The advice we relied on came from legal counsel, but not being a lawyer I
don't have (or know) the cases she was relying on. (AT&T pre-breakup comes
to mind?)
What we were told is that if we did not filter the newsfeed we could not be
considered a "publisher" but instead a "common carrier."
#############################################################
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
the mailing list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Send administrative queries to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
