Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
News

On Handling Web Site Legalities? 117

Posted by Cliff from the your-rights-online dept.
sterno asks: "I'm currently running a Web site that deals with issues of privacy, freedom, etc. Up until now the site has been built almost entirely out of articles that I have personally written. I've long considered adding the ability for people to submit articles but I'm concerned about the potential legal issues involved (copyright, etc). What I'd like to know is what people who run Web sites as hobbies have done about the potential legal issues of their sites?" If you run a Web site as a hobby, this question has probably run through your mind in some form or another. What legal contingency plans do most of you have in place which would prove useful to a Web site without much in the way of resources?

"One of the problems with building Web sites it seems is that they are frought with potential legal morasses. Somebody could be offended by your Web site and sue to have it taken down. Somebody may post proprietary information to your Web site, leading to somebody else filing a suit against you. We've seen countless reports of this happening, and I'm sure there are many situations that don't make it to the press happening every day.

If you are part of a large corporation who can afford lawyers this is one thing, but for hobbyists the same legal issues can arise but we may not possess the knowledge and resources to fend them off. So, I'm curious to know what people have done with their Web sites to reduce their risks. Do you pay a lawyer a few bucks to write a usage policy? Do you copy a policy from somewhere else? If you have gotten into some legal hot water, what did you do about it?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

On Handling Website Legalities? More

On Handling Website Legalities?

Comments Filter:

  • Of copywritten material (Score:4)

    by Ruzty ( 46204 ) <rusty@@@mraz...org> on Wednesday September 20, 2000 @08:36AM (#765838) Journal
    On a public posting system I run we must police content regularly. Our users have a penchant for posting song lyrics in full, for example.

    Make a best effort along with a public notice that content is policed and you should be in good shape.
    Avoid fighting the battles and comply with requests to have content removed. It may not be a popular stance but it CYA.
    -Rusty
  • I would think that a one-page disclaimer would help a lot, but I'm no expert. Has anyone heard of a site with a disclaimer still being nailed to the wall?

  • Legal insurance is an option. You can get a lot of good benefits for a low price. There are a few companies in America who offer it.

  • Well, it would really suck having to read/agree to disclaimers on every website someone wants to go to. I like how slash at the bottom says:

    "All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2000 OSDN."

    I think that would do it.
  • How much you are willing to do. You could always institute a moderation system similar to what is going on her at /., but, as anyone can see, there are flaws inherent in this, or any other such system. You can review and moderate induvidual submissions mailing list style, although if you are getting thousands of submissions a day, it is hardly feasable. As far as copyright of induvidual articles, let the induvidual authors claim them. Thatr should avoid any disputes over who owns them, in being that they own thier articles, you provide the forum for said articles. IANAL however, so all of this is merely supposition, but it is my $0.02 US.

  • There's a reason I use FTP for site management: if someone wants my site taken down, I can move it easily.

    If you keep server logs, you could locate whoever uploaded the offending piece and redirect fire unto them. After all, if you didn't post it, you shouldn't need to be responsible for it.

    -- LoonXTall

  • I help run a set of sports ezines [totk.com]. We've always been fairly up-front with our readers -- we do this for fun, not for profit. We don't resell email addresses (despite the offers . . . the money's been nice, but no!). We don't gather funky data. We don't even use cookies, although we've considered it for reasons.

    Now we're in a bind -- we're working on going "big time" and we need to back everything up. It helps that our Publisher's brother is a lawyuh.

    One thing we are considering doing is open-sourcing our content management system. What we've got right now works, in a way, but to go where we want to, we've got to have a better engine under the hood. In fact, we've stopped adding another ezine or two at this point because of that fact. [Hint: Sports-minded geeks encouraged to contact me about helping out with the programming.]

    We do have privacy and usage statements up there, but I think we snitched those from ESPN [espn.com] in large part -- I expect a lawsuit on copyright infringement any day now.


    --

  • If you're not moderating (i.e., everyone who submits gets their submission posted) then you can take the slashdot approach and declare that only you take no responsibility for posts.

    If you are moderating, then the responsibility falls on you to determine what can, and cannot go on the site. In that case, I'd invest in an IT lawyer to write an AUP and a disclaimer absolving you of responsibility if someone does something stupid. (i.e., you are not responsible if someone post confidential information and did not tell you that it was confidential.

    Just in case though, if I were you, I'd move your servers to Canada, where there are far fewer (if any) internet-content laws.

  • Lawyers are a funny lot. If you try to comply with the spirit of the law and police your postings, you've got to get it right each and every time or they'll hang you for your first mistake. If you say you won't police the postings, then you are not generally held liable, but your posters are.

    IANAL, but my opinion is to let anything go, make your posters know that they should not post copyright materials, and when a copyright holder gets in touch with you about a posting, and can prove that they hold the rights, and they request that it be removed, then comply.

  • There's two ways that somebody could get your web site down.

    First, they could show that your web site has inflicted injury upon them. That's pretty easy to avoid, I'd think. Well, on second thought, if the MPAA can sue 2600 for merely hosting DeCSS, I guess anything is possible. In any case, if all you're doing is hosting articles and essays written by you and others (of course you've received permssion to publish those essays you didn't write), I don't see how anyone could sue in this case. Just use editorial common sense. Don't plagarize or spread false rumors.

    If you make some good enemies, they may launch a DDoS against you, and annoy your ISP such that they turn off your account. Of course, this isn't fair; you've not done anything wrong. But from the ISP's point of view, their other customers are suffering while your account is active. So they shut it off to end the DDoS attack. I'm not sure what to do about this other than have mirrors.

    In any case, I'm not sure what anyone could do, legally. As long as your content isn't breaking any laws, I don't think anyone can say boo about it.

    Jeff

  • IANAL, nor American, but I seem to recall it to be the other way around. If you start policing, they may hold you responsible of everything on the board, whereas if you claim it all is the posters responsibility, you are more like a common carrier, and the offended party will have to sue the poster, not the site. Remember Microsoft vs. Slashdot earlier this year?

    Still, talking to a lawyer might a good idea

  • Host your site in Sealand. (Score:3)

    by Cain Novocaine ( 215368 ) on Wednesday September 20, 2000 @08:43AM (#765849)
    laws, schmaws!
    HavenCo [havenco.com]
  • i'm all about offending everybody i can with every website i make. so i've never worried about that. as for actually breaking copyright laws, etc. i suggest you just make it clear every chance you get that you aren't doing anything wrong, and if you are, you didn't mean to. just do like i do and throw a big paragraph in somewhere that says
    not responsible for anything. everything is copyright 2000 by its respective copyrighters and i asked for permission to put it here. if anything here bothers you please write me an email about it before you sue me. if you are under the age of 18, or 21, please follow
    this link [slashdot.org]. everything is copyright 2000 by its respective copyrighters and i asked for permission to put it here. i am not responsible for any harm this website causes you, your family, your pets, your self-esteem, your cadillac, the world, the universe, or the afterlife. second-hand smoke is a carcinogen, and i'm not responsible for that either. if you've read this far into my disclaimer, fuck off you ninny
    basically, all you have to do is think of every single contingency before the other guy does, and then put up a disclaimer about it. as for copyright, ah who cares?! like anybody would ever sue someone else over copyright laws anyways! copyright's as dead as moral behavior.
  • I run http://db.etree.org [etree.org]

    The legal issues I often wonder about are right along these lines. My web site allows people to list boolegs of concerts they own so others can contact them if interested in a trade.

    My legal problem is: other people have artists listed that do now allow trading of their music. I have a flag that specifies whether a user owned show is tradable, and this is up to the user to control.

    If I run into problems, I intend on flagging my artists table with tradable-non-tradable flags and forcing all non-tradable bands to not be displayed.

    This is a backup plan, so, in short, I plan on keeping my site free to people to use as they see fit for as long as I can, and if I get shit from some corp., I've got a plan in place.
  • WWSD - What Would Slashdot Do?

    Slashdot appeared to stand up when certian Microsoft documents and information on breaking past EULA's were posted here. What did they do? I don't think they took them down...

    Then, of course, is the time when Slashdot allowed a certian author to quote Slashdot postings in his book (subsequently the book was not published due to the uproar, I believe).

    There are a few other times when Slashdot, as a public forum, had information posted by users which other corporations were not happy about. In most cases, you can cite, as Slashdot has done in the past, that you are a public forum, and are not responsible for user postings.

    Of course, the bottom line is, GAFL! (Get A Lawyer (derived from RTFM)). Comments from a bunch on people familiar with internet law will not replace an attorney's knowledge of both meatspace and internet law.

    -Adam

    Gee, we bring good things to life!

  • If you are not in the US I have no clue what your local laws are. If you are in the US, IANAL, but I have a clue anyway.

    So assuming you are in the US, don't worry abouyt being sued for you views, despite DeCSS, most juries in the US are unwilling to convinct anyone for views they disagree with. Make sure you counter sue for legal fees if anyone trys.

  • I would say there are a few things you should do, firstly you should ensure that you explicitly state who has copyright on the information. Generally I would guess you should state it remains with the author of any articles etc. you publish, so that they are the point of contact for any disputes. To make this work though, you need to provide a bit more: You should make sure that there is a contact address for the author of any docs you reproduce, if you don't then you will get any complaints yourself. Finally, you should ensure there is a way for the author to remove the document. If you are the only one who can remove the doc then it is hardly fair that the author should be the one getting 'Cease and desist' letters.

    Another important issue to bear in mind is the variability of the laws in different countries: be aware of the law in the country where your pages are hosted.

    The final thing to remember is that there are exceptions in copyright law that allow the use of extracts of a larger work for the purposes of criticism etc. and also that there are additional rights granted to non-profit organisations.

    I'm not a lawyer, so you should take the above with a pinch of salt.

  • I think a disclaimer (in fine print - as on /.) on each page stating that
    "the comments are the intellectual property and/or opinions of respective posters and the site does not endorse the views of individuals"

    should be good enough. But DONT EVER back off in case a large corp's legal contacts you wrt a particular posting. Just politely tell them to contact the original poster and (let him/her remove it him/herself if (s)he wants).

    Also remember moderation actually implies that you are party to it .... so think hard before moderating.

  • lalachu (Score:5)

    by Lord Omlette ( 124579 ) on Wednesday September 20, 2000 @08:48AM (#765856) Homepage
    Doesn't the W3C have that PICS standard thingee? You could register with their website and mod your rating up to prevent little kids from going there. Any irate parents would have the blame solely placed on themselves.

    One of my favorite hentai webcomics uses a cookie on the disclaimer page to make sure you've gone through the front at least once. If you're looking at a page and that cookie isn't there, make sure the very top of the page has a warning that you haven't read the disclaimer and should read that before proceeding.

    Privacy: rule # 1: Don't be a dick. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" may make non-christians sick, but it's a pretty good way to make decisions. Try it, you might like it. rule # 2: All you need for truste certification (i think) is to disclose your privacy policy and every single way in which you collect user information and how you use it.

    Copyright: put your own copyright on every single page you've written. Reference reference reference If you've taken something from someone else, document it, and even better, get permission. If you don't know who said something, but it's not yours, say so and hope the other party comes forward. If you let someone else post on your website, remember to document in plain view that these other people's views are their own and may not necessarily reflect your own. Plan ahead: if you think something will be abused, it will be. If you think it won't be abused, it will be. Welcome to the internet.

    If you're going to post something to the net and you think you could get in legal trouble, then fuck you, stop whining, go talk to a lawyer. Lesser of three evils: spend money on a lawyer, go to jail, don't publish. Well?! CHOOSE DAMMIT! If you don't, someone else will.

    Change your content to publish only trivial things that involve linux or sensationalized headlines, then get bought out by VA Linux. Then you won't have to worry about money. whee
    --
    Peace,
    Lord Omlette
    ICQ# 77863057
  • Make sure you're aware of any legal obligations you have under the DMCA. For example, what will you do if served with a take-down notice? This doesn't necessarily involve hiring expensive lawyers- much of the research can be done yourself, using the web.

    One way to reduce the danger of a subpoena is to make sure you don't have the ability to compromise the identity of your users. Only keep log files that are required, don't require excessive user information during registration, and provide suggestions to your users about how to browse your site anonymously and pseudonymously.

    A usage policy makes sense as well- it's only fair that users can understand the terms under which they participate in your site. I understand the need for an official "legal" policy, but personally I've always wanted to see more plain-english policies, where the rules are explained in easily understandable terms. Most of the time, reading an AUP is like trying to listen to Charlie Browns math teacher: WAH WAH WAH...

  • Authenticate Users With a Contract (Score:3)

    by SlipJig ( 184130 ) on Wednesday September 20, 2000 @08:52AM (#765858) Homepage
    I run a web site where users can submit music, reviews, and other stuff (Sessioneer [sessioneer.com]); some of the music posted is probably copyrighted (I don't monitor it very effectively). I tried to address these issues by issuing a contract upon registration, which the user implicitly agrees to by using the site.

    I "borrowed" the legal text from another site and modified the text to suit my needs. I'm not a lawyer, but I think it gets the point across. Also, the nature of the material on the site is such that copyrights are rarely enforced (it's Irish traditional dance music).... so far I haven't had a problem, but I'm probably still exposed to some degree.

  • Not a stinking thing that anybody posts to a website SHOULD be used as grounds to go after the operator. You are an ISP of sorts. You never offered police or babysitting services (even if your website is cop or baby related).

    Yes, this gets to the roots of the problem with these stupid legal nitwits that want to sue everybody in sight because they believe that they now own the ASCII set (or whatever) through edict of a clueless government agency, or they believe that words constitute "assault", other assorted nonsense.

    Look at it from a privacy issue. You are providing words but you have no desire to be identified for your hard work.

    If you obscure ownership of the site, then it is more difficult for the errant, baseless, lawyerspeak mail to get to you. Register the site through e-mail, using a fake name/address and mail in a money order. If you are running a server at home, then you will blow any obfuscation. If you are using someone else's server and renting space on it, then you can make this work easier.

    Unless you become party to high-profile criminal charges by some grandstanding fed, then you have little risk of being bothered in person either.
    However, obscuring your location by administering your server remotely (POTS line, modem, laptop) and never giving out your real name will go a long way, even if some "wanna be famous" judge/lawyer team wants to go after you.

    They might try to e-mail you, but if you never give out your address (and do NOT run your site from home or a single location that you frequent), then they can not serve you with any papers/warrants or even arrest you.

    However, they may go after your provider. In that case, Sealand is probably the safest from that lawyer hack. There may be others, check around and stay anonymous.

    Visit DC2600 [dc2600.com]

  • Why hire a $.05 lawyer to protect you by writing a usage policy on the cheap when you are worried about being attacked by a rabid pack of $120K lawyers?

    As for copyright, you just need a simple statement on your part stating what happens to the copyright on submissions, and the sense to follow it.

    Anything you do in an attempt to head off attack by corporations or school boards will likely increase their fervor when they do strike as you will be giving the impression of someone ready for a fight. The first letter you recieve may be an actual legally signifigant cease-and-desist instead of vague lawyerly threats.

  • legal issues (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    This staight poop on the matter is, if someone takes offense to anything you or your users say and have money to pay an attorney they can make your life a living hell and force you to defend yourself even if your in the right.
  • OK, I used the "WWSD" model..

    I'm going to sell out to the highest bidder!!!

    Wish me luck!

    Happy to have cleared things up for you,

    Adolf

    (c) VA Linux, 2000

  • How big of a deal? (Score:3)

    by Alioth ( 221270 ) <no@spam> on Wednesday September 20, 2000 @08:58AM (#765863) Journal
    How big is your website? How many visitors? A hundred a day? Thousands? Slashdot sized traffic?

    I have a couple of websites myself which I do just for my enjoyment (it's what I do instead of watching TV), including one with a web-board where anyone can post. However, since my traffic is only about 60-100 visitors per day, I think the risk of lawyer attacks is too miniscule to justify the expense of seeking legal advice or getting insurance. (Also, my sites aren't about anything controversial anyway, so that lessens the exposure so it's so tiny it's lost in the noise. They are just something I do for fun).

    Think hard about your risk exposure - is it great, or is it small? If you are a hobbyist, your risk is probably pretty tiny, particularly if you're not winning awards for "Most Visited Site", so it might be worth just putting on some boilerplate (like Slashdot has), and not worrying about it disproportionately.

  • IANALJSAWAO - I Am Not A Lawyer, Just Some @$$h0l3 With An Opinion

    1 - Clearly state that posts are the responsibility of the poster. IOW, you don't control content.

    2 - Flawlessly exercise editorial rights in disallowing "dangerous" postings. IOW, you control the content.

    3 - Move your site to a server on Mars (and tell offended companies to file their complaints to Uranus :P). IOW, you don't care about pissing anyone off but don't want to be dumb about it.

    4 - Combine 1 & 2. Allow anything to be posted, but clearly state that you reserve the right to remove posts that conflict with your ability to maintain the website. IOW, you are willing to be reasonable - to a point.

  • A website holder doesn't have to worry about being convicted by a jury. 99.999999% of these legal problems are by people (read: corporations) with a hair up their butt for what is being said or posted on the site, so they file a lawsuit in civil court (not criminal court). Unfortunately, for the site maintainer, it is a whole lot easier for a jury to order some damages be paid in a civil case because there's a good chance (i think its: based on a proponderance of the evidence (spelling?)) that some damage can be proven. In the 2600 case, the court was overwhelmingly against the site primary because they held views that the judge didn't agree with (calling them dirty hackers, or whatever), and that helped him determine that they needed to pay for their deeds.
  • Your comment contains an assertion for which there is no scientific basis. I have been economically damaged by this claim of yours, and will be filing suit.

    You stated, "second-hand smoke is a carcinogen", but there is no compelling evidence for this [straightdope.com].

    Ever notice how hard it is to see linked text in these "Ask Slashdot" comments? I hate that.

  • Really easy. I don't provide any real contact info. In fact in you do manage to get any I am a female who is currently living in rural Russia or Pakistan.
  • Agreed, claiming that posts are the responsibility of the poster is the way to go. However if someone crosses the legal line and you do get a legal order of some sort, comply with it. Remove the offending content, etc. While you can say that "its their stuff not mine", unless they can edit their content after submission you most likely don't have a legal leg to stand on.
  • I mean come on who is their right mind is going to release their *real* contact info to the net?
  • Slashdot dosn't allow for anyone to edit their previous comments and they didn't take away the material according to my knowledge. It worked fine for them.
  • I'm a little ignorant about the subject isn't that like money that is given to you to help your defense in case you do get sued?
  • Yeah, obscuring your identity on domain records is great and all..

    Until someone takes your domain and you can't prove you used to own it.

    IMNSHO, you can't hide from legal stuff. So don't bother trying, it'll only make things worse.
  • A little trick that I use to avoid easy detection is this basically. Use public internet access stations and computer labs. I use a computer lab at a local university to access and convey information that I don't want to be traced to me. There are over 40+ computers and no way to tell who was using them. Bamo no one to blame and no one to trace.

  • Re:Look at Slashdot for a model... (Score:3)

    by barzok ( 26681 ) on Wednesday September 20, 2000 @09:18AM (#765874)
    Slashdot was only able to stand up to MS (and others) because they have lawyers courtesy of Andover. A hobbyist or "little guy" wouldn't stand a chance.

  • It's like health insurance. You pay a premium, and in return you get benefits. Usually free advisory services, trial defense... etc.

  • I run a BattleTech fan site, since I'm dealing with a lot of material that is based of of FASA's work I try to put this disclaimer on every page:
    BattleTech is a Registered Trademark of FASA Corporation. Original BattleTech material Copyright by FASA Corporation. All Rights Reserved. Used without permission. Any use of FASA Corporation's copyrighted material or trademarks in this file should not be viewed as a challenge to those copyrights or trademarks.
  • This isn't censorship, it's because they're using vi to edit their MySQL code, instead of emacs and postgreSQL!
    1. incorporate
    2. register your company name and address as an ISP under the DMCA
    3. do nothing unless you receive a sworn statement under penalty of perjury that the person is infringing copyright law.
    4. if you get that, take the site down and/or contact a lawyer if you want to fight it
  • Under the conditions of the DMCA, if an Internet Service Provider (ISP) receives complaints of a copyright violation, the ISP is required to remove that user from its system. However, should that user believe that he or she has been wrongfully accused, the DMCA allows the submission of a legal counter-notification. The copyright holder then has ten days to take legal action against the individual user. If no legal action is initiated, the ISP must restore service to the user.

  • Re:And then they cannot contact anyone (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I do. All the time and without exception.

  • My Lawyer says..(2) (Score:5)

    by cthlptlk ( 210435 ) on Wednesday September 20, 2000 @09:31AM (#765881)
    ...that I should be using Visual Basic rather Java. So why ask programmers for legal opinion?

    P.S. No one needs a good case to sue you. Maybe they need a good case to win, but going to court can kill you, win or lose. I "won" my divorce case a few months ago and I'll be paying the legal fees for the next few years.

  • I guess that was meant as a joke.

  • That only works if the people doing the legal ordering actually don't have a leg to stand on or simply don't want to look bad by actually carrying through with their threat of litigation. Thats all a cease and desist order really is, a threat of litigation. This was the case with slashdot v. microsoft. Microsoft actually didn't have any legal protections on the code, it was a trade secret which worth almost nothing legally unless the person telling the secret it is violating a corporate confidentiality agreement.

    If this wasn't the case, like if what was posted was legally protected and important then the situation would have been different. If someone posted the source to some large expensive copyrighted proprietary software for instance, slashdot would have had to go to court and most likely would have lost.

    Its one thing to say that the content on the site is the property of the posters, it is another thing to treat it that way. Slashdot treats posts like they were the content of the community since you can't re-edit your post after it is made. IANAL, but as such it may be open to attack if someone does something way out of line.

  • Re:lalachu (Score:4)

    by Silas ( 35023 ) on Wednesday September 20, 2000 @09:34AM (#765884) Homepage
    If you're going to post something to the net and you think you could get in legal trouble, then fuck you, stop whining, go talk to a lawyer. Lesser of three evils: spend money on a lawyer, go to jail, don't publish. Well?! CHOOSE DAMMIT! If you don't, someone else will.

    To me, this translates to "if you want to exercise your right to free speech, you have to be prepared to spend money to defend that right." I disagree that this should ever be the case, and think the notion that there needs to be any sort of safety net in place beyond the Bill of Rights (and that the saftey net should cost the individual citizen money on a per incident basis) is appalling.

    If you're going to bother at all with the whole "right to free speech" rigamarole, you have to be prepared to go all the way.

  • I've been running (so to say, with LOADS of downtime) a site for quite some time. current.nu [current.nu] has been up in some form or another since about June of 1998, and had no problems at all (yet, knock on wood). I think there are some key things that keep us from having legal problems, but we probably border on having some...

    Honestly, Largo (Justin Stressman) has a Window Maker theme site that probably runs the biggest legal risk, because he will snake ANY cool image for a theme. I've discussed it with him, and he goes to some effort to reference and _credit_ the original source of the images. Although his work involves extensively modifying images, in most cases to the point where the original image is almost impossible to identify, he still credits the original source whenever possible. That, coupled with the fact that we will probably pull them at the request of the original artist, probably gets us by. It's good for the artist (acknowledgement), and good for him.

    Any news, software, or other content on the sites is either 1) Just referenced, not locally copied, 2) Mirror of something that is clearly public domain, or 3) our own damn work. So, there shouldn't be any problems there.

    But yea, it's a big concern. For the last year we (mostly me) have been going through some legal research about founding a "corporation" for the sake of distancing personal liability. And it's not cheap ($150 in paperwork to become a incorporated is just the beginning, it's really the time and money involved with "staying legal" that makes it tough). Makes the "hobby" not much fun. Also makes you think about trying to make some money off the thing, just to cover your costs, but that's even more work.

    But, what it really depends on is your ultimate goal. You didn't really make that clear. If you are out to make a buck as a news portal selling ad space, you have a very tough road to go. Then you HAVE to make it right and legal, and cover all the bases. That means it will cost you money to get started. If your just doing something with no ads, that your doing for the joy of it, then just reference your sources, paraphrase, and link the original for content. For hobby sites, you just cross your fingers, hope and pray, and try to believe that if a big company takes you to court for "copyright violations" on your none profit hobby site, a jury will laugh them out of court, and see it for what it is, one guy with a web page vs. a multibillion dollar company.

    If you think this is tough, you would love the discussions I had to have with a University sys admin about how Largo's stuff isn't porn, it's art, and it's not a serious threat to the universities bandwidth. Luckily, we pay our own bandwidth now and can do whatever the hell we want (and it shows in the slow speed of our site).

  • Considering what our esteemed Slashdot did with a certain Jon Katz book, I think your concerns are misplaced. Just call it "fair use". You can even charge a nominal amount of money to view comments submitted by others (for free). Submit, like 1% to charity and the other 99% for, uhh, "administrative purposes" (namely, your bank account needs feeding).

    Get rich, retire to a beach in, uhh, Michigan, and live happily ever after. That's the Slashdot Way.

    --

  • ``IANAL, nor American...''

    IANAL either, but am an American who hopes that some common sense can be applied to questions like this (what a dreamer I am, eh?).

    ``If you start policing, they may hold you responsible of everything on the board, whereas if you claim it all is the posters responsibility, you are more like a common carrier, and the offended party will have to sue the poster, not the site.''

    This is good point (and wasn't it one of the major points that the big ISPs raised against the deservedly ill-fated Internet Decency Act?). Why not prominently display a disclaimer and a graphic that indicates that such-and-such article is a visitor-submitted one? Also, a policy whereby all submittors agree to have such a header attached to their article would, I believe, keep you out of hot water. (But see above...) You might have to take things down on occasion but at least your submittors would know that they can't plagiarize or violate copyright and get away with.

    ``Still, talking to a lawyer might a good idea''

    Yah, sort of like a prostate exam: A good idea but not necessarily enjoyable.


    --

  • I do. All the time and without exception.

    Says the anonymous coward when asked who in their right mind would release their real info on the web.

  • erf, hold up (Score:3)

    by Lord Omlette ( 124579 ) on Wednesday September 20, 2000 @09:51AM (#765889) Homepage
    no fair telling us you have a website without giving us a url to slashdot. ^_^
    --
    Peace,
    Lord Omlette
    ICQ# 77863057

  • Re:And then they cannot contact anyone (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I did NOT say that.
  • We had a problem with someone sending offensive, annonymous stuff to a woman at my old university, from one of the labs.

    we figured out who it was.

    bamo
  • I run a small indi zine called dezine:

    http://www.cetan.com/dezine/ [cetan.com]

    I've not really thought too much about getting sued maybe just because I've not had a whole lot of traffic (well, none really).

    Whenever I got a new author to write a column or two I would always send a standard boilerplate email that said (among other things)
    1. Authors are responsible for their content
    2. Authors retain the rights to their work
    3. dezine is only a forum in which to post their ideas
    4. the editors of dezine can remove any content at their disgression.

    I know this probably isn't very strong, but I think that because I say the author retains the right to their work and that neither the editors nor the zine itself lays claim to it, that this might protect me from the kind of legal firestorm that might ensue.

    unfortunatly, I never placed that text out on the website itself. plain stupidity on my part.

  • Well, Slashdot's strategy would probably be affected by the several million that Andover has lying around in the bank.

    This topic is supposed to be about what the "little guy" can do in this situation. Slashdot doesn't fit in that category.

  • Buy insurance... (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I had exactly this same question -- I run the Build Your Own Arcade Controls FAQ [arcadecontrols.com] website. Among other things there's the occasional bit about mucking around with electronics, with the associated worry of someone doing something stupid and sizzling themself.

    Aside from disclaimers (which as far as I've ever been able to tell mean squat in courts), you can contact your insurance company about an umbrella policy. IANA(insurance agent), but this can cheaply buy you something like a million dollars in coverage for miscellaneous lawsuits that aren't covered by anything else.

    Unfortunately, in my case they turned me down. They claimed that because I was in the computer field, that running a web site about arcade controls (which has zip to do with my job - network admin) was work related. I decided to give up and wait a while before trying to find someone who had a clue and try again.

    At any rate, because I couldn't get the coverage, I chose to restrict certain content on my site, and instead provided links to other sites with the material I was afraid to host. With recent events I'm even a bit worried about that but I'm not changing anything yet. It bites, but I have a family to think about and am poor enough as is.

    Be interested in seeing what you finally choose to do, please post!

    --- saint

  • The original question is one that's been on my mind also, as I'm considering putting up a parody/fiction site. But I'm concerned about my legal exposure. My proposed site will have references (clearly labelled as fiction and satire, and posted by both me and my guests) to some 'in-joke' rumors about popular corporations (e.g: Microsoft is owned by aliens, Hormel's SPAM is made of ground human meat, the Teletubbies are mutated lab experiments, etc.)

    Is a disclaimer, stating that all contents are fiction/parody/satire, enough to deflect legal threats to a parody website? Is there something else that can be done to protect me if I do create this site?
  • right and by posting to the web, we're all exercising our right to free speech... but the fact is, it's perfectly possible for us to get sued just because we disagree with someone. we're supposed to be prepared for it... wide-eyed naivity [sp] is not the way to go on the net.
    --
    Peace,
    Lord Omlette
    ICQ# 77863057
  • Get A Fscking Lawyer?! Have things come to that? Can't people setup their own websites without having to shell out a mound of cash to an overpriced lawyer? It would be sorry indeed if everyone needed a lawyer to look over even the simplest of websites.
  • 2600 themselves had the DeCSS code on their site, so they were responsible. I am an ISP. If one of my users posts the DeCSS code on their home page, I am not responsible nor liable. A Cease and Desist letter from MPAA would not be cause of concern to me. But it would be of concern to the user.
  • Not policing used to be the safe thing to do. Now, though, networks only qualify for DMCA "safe harbor" status if they have procedures in place for investigating allegations of copyright infringment.
  • Gee, big surprise there.

  • Wrong. Wrong, so much Wrong here!!! (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Some of you people scare me silly! See a lawyer with a net practice area. Maybe we are not as pricey as you think. Maybe we are, but maybe we are worth it. You don't know until you talk to one. Some of us are even so nice as to discount our fees for what we consider to be free-speech noncommercial sites. Some of us even have free public seminars. Your attorney will likely cover DMCA copyright safe harbors, basic copyright information, the CDA and defamation. Additionally, trademark & jurisdiction issues. He or she will work with you to develop a risk management strategy and terms of service, taking into account the nature of your site, your architecture, and the law of your jurisdiction. Judging by these posts, there is a great deal of misunderstanding out there in regard to the Wild Wild West. Want to educate yourself so that you understand the issues to interact intelligently with counsel? I would start with Findlaw for links on these topics, and the EFF.org. Lawrence Street's Law of the Internet 2000(Lexis Pub.) is a good primer, but is already out of date in some respects, and should not be relied upon, blah-blah-blah. I do not represent that the information on these sites will be "right," complete, or even suited to your particular situation, blah-blah-blah. I am here to examine /.'s terms of service and strategy related to these issues for a like community newsfilter/discussion site. I would be more assistance, but I am constrained by the ethical limitations of my profession and do not seek to form an attorney-client relationship with you, blah-blah-blah. We need a national pro-bono effort on behalf of lawyers to assist people in this area, especially sites that contribute to our "marketplace of ideas." They lie at the heart of the things this country was founded upon. Is there one, besides the EFF? Never heard of it in my state...post it, I'll check back later. Sorry to be so long-winded, but I'm a lawyer.

  • Legal threats? In the US, sure. Satire is well protected by both the first amendment and lots of supreme court precident.

    But the financial threat of being sued by an irate corp can't be removed. They can sue you without good reason. Even if they don't win, they can cost you so much in lawyers's fees you'll have to give up before you ever get your day in court.

    However, there is a tact no one else seems to have taken. I might consider the following: Draft (or hire someone to draft for me) an extremely professional letter explaning...

    1. We all know that parody is protected by the first amendment and there isn't a court in the country which would find for the plaintiff in such a case.
    2. We all know that the would-be plaintiff has bag of money and hungry lawyers straining at their leashes, while their poor target could barely mount a legal defense.
    3. However, it has come to the author's attention that the N.Y. Times, Washington Post, and CNN, among others, adore these "big corp sues poor schmuck because big corp has no sense of humor" stories. Indeed, if they were to pick up the story, quite literally hundreds of thousands more people would see the work of parody in question.
    4. Therefore I have cc'd your head of Public Relations on this letter. I'm sure they'd be happy to explain to you quite what such a lawsuit could do to your brand.

    And then I'd have it ready for any cease-and-desist letters which show up.
    --------------------------------------------- -

  • I run a site such as you're planning on. IANAL, but as long as it's obviously satire or parody you don't have much to worry about. Just don't go accusing anyone of any crimes, or use your stories to make money in the stock market (ie fake press releases posing as real)

    That said anybody can sue you for anything, and hopefully some high profile person does. It would be the best exposure you could get.

    Brian
  • I was thinking about a system for handling this, and I came up with the notion of a copyright complaint system. Essentially if a person feels that they are having their copyright violated, they can file to have the article removed. If the author is anonymous it will be removed automatically. If they are not anonymous, then the complaint would be forwarded to them and they would be given the ability to remove their own article. If they don't respond in a reasonable period of time (i.e. they gave a false e-mail address), the article would be removed automatically.

    The big hole in this plan that I can see is that if the person has an anonymous e-mail account (i.e. there's no real way to associate their e-mail with a legal name), then they can just ignore the complainer. At that point the complainer might seek relief from me because they can't get it from the poster.

    ---

  • I have no legal plan in place. I plan to shut it down if asked. Period. It's just a hobby.

  • Makes you wonder how much internet bandwidth is consumed by the transmission of legal disclaimers...

    Isn't it sad that much of one's efforts go toward covering one's ass? I've worked at some places that every piddling little decision had to be documented and cc:'d to the right people. Just in case someone gets their undies in a bunch and goes looking for someone to hang. After a while you figure that only about half your day is spent doing actual productive work. And don't forget the new cover sheet on your TPS report...

    ``Brought to you by Team SPAM! where we believe: "Information in the noise!"''

    That's essentially the idea behind spread spectrum communications right?

    Cheers...
    --

  • Cash-wise, I mean. From an email I recieved on the question of cold hard cash: "USD 1500/month: colocation and physical maintenance/management of a 1U server, 64kbps bandwidth to Internet, 100mbps of onsite bandwidth (to other HavenCo customers), IP addresses. USD 1500 setup, one-time. USD 1500/mbps/month for bandwidth -- we'll pro-rate down to 128kbps for USD 187.50/month." Not including hardware, which is high-end (VA Linux 1000, for example.)
  • It would have too, if crappy click-thru software license agreements hold up in court then a "I Agree" on a web page should.
  • I am part of a three person team running a collaborative fiction site (Prosebush [prosebush.com]). We have spent a lot of time discussing these issues and take them seriously. One thing we have decided is not to censor anyone unless it is an obvious case of hate literature. If that does crop up (it hasn't yet---probably will now!) we intend to mail the user and ask if what they wrote is legitimately being used as a literary device. If they can't, or won't, justify it, we will remove it. Hopefully this will never happen.... we just don't want something we (and our contributors) worked hard on becoming a vehicle for racism, etc... We will tolerate almost anyhting but there is that line (yes, it is different for everyone.... where do YOU draw it?)

    One thing I am wondering about is how will this policy affect people who choose to post anonymously. If they do this they are forfeiting ownership of thier work right? (RIGHT?!?) What do you guys think about that. If someone doesn't explicitly release thier work is it free for others to use?

    --8<--

  • Whenever I start a small non-profit hobby site I like to assemble a huge legal team to pre-emptively sue those that I may recieve legal problems from.. I find that the hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal expenses make it worth my peace of mind..

  • WWSD - What Would Slashdot Do?
    So, what would Brian Boitano do,
    If he were here today?
    I'm sure he'd kick an ass or two,
    That's what Brian Boitano'd do!

  • Re:lalachu (Score:3)

    by Bongo ( 13261 ) on Wednesday September 20, 2000 @12:48PM (#765912)

    "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" may make non-christians sick, but it's a pretty good way to make decisions.

    BAHA'I
    "Blessed are those who prefer others before themselves."
    -- Baha'u'llah, Tablets of Baha'u'llah, 71

    BUDDHISM
    "Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful."
    -- Udana-Varga, 5:18

    CHRISTIANITY
    "Always treat others as you would like them to treat you."
    -- Jesus, Matthew 7:12

    CONFUCIANISM
    "Do not unto others what you would not have them do unto you."
    -- Analects 15:23

    HINDUISM
    "This is the sum of all duty: do not do to others what would cause pain if done to you."
    -- Mahabharata 5:1517

    ISLAM
    "No one of you is a believer until you desire for another that which you desire for yourself"
    -- Sunnah

    JAINISM
    "In happiness and suffering, in joy and grief, regard all creatures as you would regard your own self."
    -- Lord Mahavir 24th Tirthankara

    JUDAISM
    "What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor, That is the entire Torah; all the rest is commentary."
    -- Talmud, Shabbat 31a

    NATIVE AMERICAN
    "Respect for all life is the foundation"
    -- The Great Law of Peace

    SIKHISM
    "Be not estranged from another for God dwells in every heart."
    -- Sri Guru Granth Sahib

    ZOROASTRIANISM
    "Human nature is good only when it does not do unto another whatever is no good for its own self."
    -- Dadistan-i-Dinik, 94:5

    WICCAN
    "Everything you do, whether positive or negative, is returned to you threefold."
    -- The Threefold Law

  • Brian Boitano
    He's Kicking Ass For Slashdot
    Only in Winter

    --
  • Well I guess it depends on whether or not users are required to log in to computers with their university accounts (in which case it should be trivial to trace behavior). If not, unless you have a really observant lab assistant working the lab, how could anyone be traced?
  • This plan works for me too. (I run the aether sanctum [goth.org.au], an australian dark culture zine.)

    I also point out to contributors that they own the copyright on what they have written, and I take copyright on its presentation, and they give me permission to do this. I haven't had any problems, and besides, its is unlikely any Big Nasty corporations could validly take offense to my site, even though there is an anti-corporate smell about it, since the readership is so small that I could claim any damages would be speculative at best and statistically insignificant at worst. If all else fails I'll put the sucker on Freenet [freenetproject.org]!

    --

  • Not a stinking thing that anybody posts to a website SHOULD be used as grounds to go after the operator. You are an ISP of sorts. You never offered police or babysitting services (even if your website is cop or baby related).
    Demon, a very old and respected UK ISP ws sued recently (ish) for not removing a libelous statement from there newserver!. I cant remember the details, but the item wasn't even posted by someone with a demon account. It was settled out of court IIRC, but it looks like UK law doesn't accept the basic ISP arguement.
  • ... "if you want to exercise your right to free speech, you have to be prepared to spend money to defend that right." I disagree that this should ever be the case ...

    Should is the key word. What is and what should be are not the same here.

    If you're going to bother at all with the whole "right to free speech" rigamarole, you have to be prepared to go all the way.

    Why? If I want to say a few words on a website, but I don't want to put myself through the hassle of legal proceedings, am I silly for getting some sound advice (on /. ?) on what may happen and how I can protect myself? Some people balance the costs of their actions, and some of those find expression (on some subjects) unworthy of jail time or legal action.

    Louis Wu

    "Where do you want to go ...

  • Re:lalachu (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    To me, this translates to "if you want to exercise your right to free speech, you have to be prepared to spend money to defend that right." I disagree that this should ever be the case, and think the notion that there needs to be any sort of safety net in place beyond the Bill of Rights (and that the saftey net should cost the individual citizen money on a per incident basis) is appalling.

    What does this even mean? How can the Bill of Rights be self enforcing? Even if you think something is covered by the first amendment, if you're in the gray area, then yes, you have to be willing to spend money to defend yourself. It's not appalling, it's the only way our system can protect IP and speech. It is necessary that there be a way to distinguish between protected and non-protected speech.
  • My homepage gets maybe 10 hits per day and has nothing offensive, so the possibility of people suing me because of it seems remote. On the other hand, the TI-89 section of my webpage gets 200 hits per day. I was recently thinking about this and the fact that it had no Terms of Service or Privacy Policy. Thus, I did a little research and wrote a temporary one. I sort of "borrowed" a bit of the disclaimer from various sites and shifted the wording. This shouldn't matter much, however, since some of the wording is likely standard in many site's policies. For the Privacy Policy, I went to Micro$oft BCentral's page [linkexchange.com], which had a wizard that automatically creates a privacy policy. Thus, my disclaimer and privacy policy were born. I think that they will be temporary, however, as you can just bet that M$ set up some hole inside of its policy generator in order to let it sue anyone (although TRUSTe was a sponsor of the generator); plus, the modifications might not be worded correctly and could have created loopholes. Anyway, for the long term, TRUSTe [truste.org] has a lot of information about what you need in a privacy policy and it will certify your site for you. Plus, I think that the disclaimer at GNU [gnu.org] might be able to be adapted for a disclaimer or a terms of service. "Borrowing" a policy from another site might not be entirely legal but it is ok to borrow GNU's license. I think that creating your own policies is a good idea but you shouldn't have to hire professionals if you just have a site as a hobby and writing your own might create holes in it if you miss certain things. Also, as for avoiding lawsuits, you can put a clause on your site forcing people to pay for your lawyers in any lawsuit that occurs due because of their improper use of your site as dictated by your policy. Then if they lose, which they likely will in a lawsuit of this type, they can pay for your lawyers.
  • If you can't be found, I can guarantee that the first place they'll go is to your ISP. Your ISP will then promptly either disclose who you are or shut you down. This is not a useful solution. You simply can't be public and be hidden. Don't even try.

    The best solution is to ask posters not to post copyrighted material (I suggest to make it even more obvious, that your "submit" button actually includes a statement to the effect of "the material I am about to submit is my work, and is not copyrighted by anyone else." This should remove much of the onus. You can also set up a copyright/license/trade secret dispute resolution policy. The policy should be short and to the point. (Namely, that you as the site owner have the right to remove any post, arbitrarily. And that you will remove posts that violate anyone else's rights.)

    The reality is that as a content carrier, you become liable only if you get a cease & desist from a lawyer. (a letter that basically says "stop it.") This letter should specifically identify the copyright, trade secret, or license being violated, and the specific post. At that point, you are obligated to take action (as the Netcom case demonstrated.)

    So, how do you respond to a cease & desist?
    First, you contact the original poster, and ask them about whether the complainer has a point. If the material was posted anonymously, just take it down, without asking the poster. If the poster responds, then you can have him/her and the copyright owner duke it out, and you can just duck. In most cases, the discussion is pretty short, because the copyright owner should show a registered copyright, and that should end the discussion.

    Of course, you can always talk to a lawyer. And if the RTC comes after you, I suggest that you do.

    Thalia

    IAAL, but this is not legal advice. I don't even know what state you're living in...
  • Unfortunately, for the site maintainer, it is a whole lot easier for a jury to order some damages be paid in a civil case because there's a good chance (i think its: based on a proponderance of the evidence (spelling?))

    In most courts in the US, you would indeed be correct. The standard in civil cases is usually the preponderance of the evidence (legalese for 50% plus one). Some states may mandate "clear and convincing evidence" which is a higher standard but still short of the criminal standard.

    That being said, there's also considerable variation in how the various states allow for damages. Some allow proportional damages, others will let a defendant be hammered if he's even 1% liable. Copyright, IIRC, would go through Federal courts and I don't know how they handle damages.

    There's also a factor called the "culpable mental state." You may be under a law mandating that the jury can only find for the plaintiff if the defendant acted negligently, or you may be under strict liability, meaning that it doesn't matter how hard the defendant tried to obey the law; he can still be stuck no matter how much good faith he showed.

    Sucks as it might, I'd think about consulting a competent lawyer. Civil law and procedure is one big hairball and woe is he who tries to navigate it without help.

  • It's all to do with hosting your website in IRAQ.

    Glad I could be of service.

  • Look into your left jacket pocket, you should find a cellphone. Unscrew the case with a phillips head screwdriver.. yes, that's it... NO NOT A fLATHEAD...

    Little did Johny know that his cellphone was triangulated every five seconds and the S.W.A.R.M. arrived seconds later to pounce on his (now dead) body.

  • Dang and blast, it's the same with murder.

    And the survivor said, don't go sue on me.

  • "Ever notice how hard it is to see linked text in these "Ask Slashdot" comments? I hate that"

    Yes.

  • I used to run a Web provider service (on my own) during my university years, and this was probably my biggest constant worry, aside from "will I get enough money this month". In fact, I got threats of legal action (generally on the basis of copyright violation) probably once every couple of months once the service started getting users.

    At first I would go "oh shit" when one of these came, but I took a clue from other ISPs' policies and took the stance of "I will do nothing without concrete evidence or a court order." What I found was that in nearly all of the cases, the threatener backed down without sending another message--or they may have contacted the relevant users directly, but at least they left me alone. I did have one case with Fraunhofer IIS and a user's MP3 software, but they became cooperative after I informed them of my stance (in that case, I told the user about the alleged problem and he removed the file before I finished confirming the claim); another time, a user uploaded a tool to break into AOL accounts, and I zapped that (and the user's account) as soon as AOL sent me a nastygram about it. Other than those couple of cases, though, I didn't have any real trouble to speak of; I never once received any "official" C&D's or other legal notices.

    I guess what it boils down to is that if you (1) stay within the law, (2) show that you're willing to defend yourself to that extent, and (3) show a willingness to cooperate when real problems arise, most people will leave you alone. Even companies aren't stupid enough to fight battles they can't get anything out of; it's only in cases like Microsoft stealing people's ideas (e.g. Stacker--does anyone remember that? It's what became MS's Doublespace compression technology, or whatever it's called), where the company can get something by running the other party into the ground, where they'll fight a losing battle.

    Of course, if you do skirt the boundaries of legality--like DeCSS and friends--you'd better be prepared to face the consequences. I should note explicitly that a large number of things involving free speech fall into this category; if your argument is "blah-blah is technically illegal but free speech makes it okay," then you're setting yourself up for a lawsuit somewhere, and you should be prepared for that.

  • I agree that the Bill of Rights is not a self-enforcing document (at least not in the less-than-ideal world that exists at present). But I think that the person to whom I was responding originally was implying that enforcement of any kind will always require money, and that the private citizen should not attempt to exercise their right to free speech unless they were prepared to spend that money. The right to free speech is (or should be) unconditional, at least in the sense that there should be no pre-requisitve of wealth in order to enjoy its privileges.

    I do concede that questions of legal free speech require a complex process to resolve them, and that the process can be expensive. But just as alleged criminals are theoretically presumed innocent until proven guilty, potential violators of free speech law who are acting in good conscience (i.e. what they're saying isn't, to them, clearly illegal) should have an opportunity to make their statements independent of whether or not they have the finacial backing to survive the legal process.

  • nice ^_^
    --
    Peace,
    Lord Omlette
    ICQ# 77863057

  • To me, this translates to "if you want to exercise your right to free speech, you have to be prepared to spend money to defend that right."

    This is a confusion that seems common in these parts (i.e. Slashdot) and should be cleared up. Getting sued by someone else, be it a corporation or another person, is a civil matter, not a criminal matter. The Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, specifically deal with criminal law.

    The right to free speech means is that you can't be prosecuted for saying something, with the standard caveats of "yelling fire in a crowded theatre" or being Aldrich Ames. That has absolutely nothing to do with being sued by someone else, whether it be for defamation, revealing trade secrets, or whatever. Also note that you can't go to jail as the result of a civil proceeding.

    Likewise, it's not an infringement of your right to free speech if a bulletin board operator decides to remove (censor) your posts. While we may not all agree with such actions when they happen, the fact is that your right to free speech does not require that anyone else provide the platform (the means) by which you may exercise that right. You can say anything you want, but you can't spray paint it on the side of my house.

    The flip side of all this is that while you can't be subject to prosecution for speech, you can be subject to severe financial penalties as the result of something that you've said. To make matters worse, the average person need not even lose a lawsuit to be subject to financial harm; the lawyer fees alone for a defense attorney will be extremely damaging.

    And ultimately, the result is the same; the stifling of freedom of expression.

    For a good case that explores both sides of this debate, research the case of Proctor & Gamble vs. Amway Corp., and the countersuit which includes Amway Corp. vs. Sidney Schwartz. P&G sued Amway a few years back due to Amway's voice mail system being used to transmit a message among the "independent" Amway distributors concerning the old urban legend about P&G being involved with Satanism. Amway's countersuit revolved largely around Schartz's anti-Amway web site, and the fact that P&G had used Schwartz as a consultant in their battle with Amway.

    According to Amway, P&G was funding Schwartz's site, which Schwartz denies. Due to the legal battle, Schwartz finally took his site down, although it is still mirrored heavily around the world. Despite the fact that Amway and their lawyers were never able to answer Schwartz's challenge to point out even one single incorrect statement on his site, he was effectively silenced by Amway's continued litigation. They didn't need to win in court.

    This is a Really Bad Thing (TM), but it has nothing to do with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It simply doesn't apply here. What does apply here is the higher concept of freedom of expression that we believe in. And while I think it's slimy for Amway to shut down Schwartz's web site, what about P&G suing over a rumor? Sure Schwartz was right and the rumor was wrong, but...

    Let's keep the focus in this battle; it's turning out to be a nasty one, but ultimately we're going to have to win it.

    Michael

  • No, really. 1. If you want to cover yourself, one way of doing it is to subscribe to a legal plan. Frankly, I think that a lot of the lawyers that participate in those plans are not the best quality lawyers, but it will definitely keep your costs reasonable and predictable. 2. If you do get sued or threatened with legal action, and the case against you is truly bogus, try to publicize it as much as possible. Believe it or not, there is a substantial chance that someone interested in your case will be willing to represent you for free. As you know, a lot of people, including lawyers, take the First Amendment pretty seriously and are willing to defend it.
  • As long as you're willing to pull any posts that EvilCo doesn't like, then the "safe harbor" provision of the DMCA protects you from any lawsuits.

    Beyond that, there's a whole series of rules to follow -- or not. But if you don't follow them, you could *potentially* have to defend yourself in court against a civil claim. If EvilCo sues you and you don't show up, they'll get a default judgement against you and you can be screwed but good. Don't forget - EvilCo can collect damages "plus legal expenses," and even if they only get a $1 judgement against you, the legal fees could be thousands.

    There are ways around a lot of these problems, but I am *not* going to discuss them in a public forum. As I think most of you know, I get to spend enough time dealing with DMCA and legal crap without looking for more of it.

    - Robin

  • Re:Of copywritten material (Score:3)

    by muldrake ( 171275 ) on Wednesday September 20, 2000 @09:03PM (#765938) Homepage Journal
    Specifically policing content is a terrible idea. Further, you don't even have to do that to get immunity from copyright suits.

    You need to have a copyright page, and that page needs to have a DMCA agent, which can be you, if you have a clue and don't want to pay a designated legal agent by the hour to wade through kook mail. This should include your name, address for service of legal papers, telephone and/or fax number, email address, PGP key and any other means of contacting you.

    The full details of this are available at Bitlaw [bitlaw.com] and the statute is 17 USC 512.

    (2)
    Designated agent. The limitations on liability established in this subsection apply to a service provider only if the service provider has designated an agent to receive notifications of claimed infringement described in paragraph (3), by making available through its service, including on its website in a location accessible to the public, and by providing to the Copyright Office, substantially the following information:

    (A)
    the name, address, phone number, and electronic mail address of the agent.

    (B)
    other contact information which the Register of Copyrights may deem appropriate. The Register of Copyrights shall maintain a current directory of agents available to the public for inspection, including through the Internet, in both electronic and hard copy formats, and may require payment of a fee by service providers to cover the costs of maintaining the directory.

    Now here's the bitch. Any complaint, no matter how ill-founded, must result in the removal of the disputed material, so long as it fully complies with the proper format for a DMCA notification, that is:

    (3)
    Elements of notification.

    (A)
    To be effective under this subsection, a notification of claimed infringement must be a written communication provided to the designated agent of a service provider that includes substantially the following:

    (i)
    A physical or electronic signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

    (ii)
    Identification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed, or, if multiple copyrighted works at a single online site are covered by a single notification, a representative list of such works at that site.

    (iii)
    Identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity and that is to be removed or access to which is to be disabled, and information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to locate the material.

    (iv)
    Information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to contact the complaining party, such as an address, telephone number, and, if available, an electronic mail address at which the complaining party may be contacted.

    (v)
    A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.

    (vi)
    A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

    However, if the original poster of the material sends a counternotification, basically adhering to the same conventions, you can put the material right back up and then the complaining party has to sue the actual poster of the information or shut the fuck up.

    Actually, they can conceivably just keep sending further complaints about the same material and forcing this tango to occur over and over again; it's not yet determined whether or not they can get away with it.

    In *either* case, though, they can't sue *YOU*. At all. And this does NOT require you to police anything, only to act when given ACTUAL and CONSTRUCTIVE notice adhering to a specific format.

    There is, by the way, no legal requirement that you actually have a DMCA Agent or comply with cease-and-desist orders you think are BS. The only problem with this is that you can then actually be sued and forced to defend yourself. DMCA also does not negate any legal defenses such as "Fair Use" that may exist under prior law, whether or not you choose to have an agent. It just immunizes you as a service provider from the inevitable kook suits that occur when you give free rein to Joe Nutbag to post to your website anonymously or otherwise.

  • And this does NOT require you to police anything, only to act when given ACTUAL and CONSTRUCTIVE notice

    Slight but important correction. Actual OR constructive notice, and possibly only actual notice.

  • 2600 themselves had the DeCSS code on their site, so they were responsible. I am an ISP. If one of my users posts the DeCSS code on their home page, I am not responsible nor liable. A Cease and Desist letter from MPAA would not be cause of concern to me. But it would be of concern to the user.

    This is dangerous ignorance.

    Tell it to Netcom [seattleu.edu].

  • According to Amway, P&G was funding Schwartz's site, which Schwartz denies. Due to the legal battle, Schwartz finally took his site down, although it is still mirrored heavily around the world. Despite the fact that Amway and their lawyers were never able to answer Schwartz's challenge to point out even one single incorrect statement on his site, he was effectively silenced by Amway's continued litigation. They didn't need to win in court.

    Scamway is a litigious cult on the level of $cientology. Like all scams, they can't survive when the truth about their scam is freely available. However, they know that it's very easy for a large corporation to outspend a single individual and litigate them to utter financial destruction regardless of the merits of the case.

    Welcome to Amerika. How much freedom can you afford?

  • And of course:

    SLASHDOT ZEALOTRY
    "It is my godgiven right to do unto others what I would never let them do to me (cuz they're evil corporate droids and I'm a 1337 h4XX0r)"
    -- http://64.28.67.48

    Thanks for the summary though. I was going to post something similar, but I wouldn't have found so many examples.

  • If you can't be found, I can guarantee that the first place they'll go is to your ISP. Your ISP will then promptly either disclose who you are or shut you down. This is not a useful solution. You simply can't be public and be hidden. Don't even try.

    If the ISP does not know who you are how can they disclose it? It is a trivial exercise to keep that information from them and everybidy else, as long as you are willing to give up convenience. I *thought* that I stated that in my post, but the post is not in front of me and I probably did not state it very clearly.

    "Shut you down" as in throwing you in jail and silencing you? See paragraph above. If they can't find you they can not silence you. You can ALWAYS get hosted at another place. The deciding factor being that, just as in real life, privacy on the 'net brings a cost of convenience. If you are willing to pay those costs (get hosted at a "privacy friendly" service, remote admin, etc.) then you keep operating under a different domain.

    Visit DC2600 [dc2600.com]

Slashdot Top Deals

Congratulations! You are the one-millionth user to log into our system. If there's anything special we can do for you, anything at all, don't hesitate to ask!

Close