|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 123 responses total. |
jmsaul
|
|
response 75 of 123:
| 
Jul 7 21:51 UTC 2000 |
You know, I've already gotten email from Grex users asking if I'm going to
sue, and wanting to be part of the lawsuit. Keep pushing, and I'll change
my mind and say yes. You guys are wrong, what you're doing violates
copyright, and you'll only be allowed to keep doing it until someone cares
enough to bankrupt you in Federal court.
You can keep yammering about how cool Grex democracy is, or about how people
who haven't sent you money don't deserve to have an opinion, or even about
how trivial the issue is -- but you're violating people's legal rights. I
don't think you should be proud of that.
(And believe me, all of the items where you guys have talked about the issue,
and ignored the problem, would be entered in evidence at the trial to show
that your infringement was willfull and deliberate, and possibly even
malicious. Ironically enough. So keep on keeping on, guys.)
|
scott
|
|
response 76 of 123:
|
Jul 8 00:31 UTC 2000 |
So are you going to ask for another vote, Joe?
|
remmers
|
|
response 77 of 123:
|
Jul 8 01:19 UTC 2000 |
(Nobody has said "people who haven't sent [Grex] money don't
deserve to have an opinion.")
Three points:
(1) Joe, you specialize in copyright and intellectual property
law. Ergo, your opinion has to carry some weight.
(2) The members voted a policy which you believe to violate
people's legal rights.
(3) I believe that Grex should not violate people's legal rights.
So if the policy voted by the members is indeed illegal, the
board should override it. We can't honor a vote for an illegal
policy. Another vote would not settle the issue of whether the
current policy is legal, so I don't see the point in taking
one. It would also not settle the question of what range of
options Grex has in conforming to copyright law (other options
were discussed besides the ones voted on), a question which I
have become rather interested in as a result of discussion on
this issue. My personal opinion that the current law, if it is
as you describe, is a bad law is not necessarily relevant.
My recommendation at this point would be that the board
undertake to educate itself by consulting an attorney who is
knowledgeable about both copyright law and electronic
communications. This would be a responsible thing to do.
I would also *hope* that it remains possible for low-overhead
bbs systems like Grex and M-Net, neither of which have deep
pockets, can continue to operate without excessive fear of
legal liability. If this copyright issue is a trap, what other
traps might there be that we non-lawyer types don't know about
and that someone with an axe to grind could exploit to bankrupt
us? I hope that running a bbs doesn't become so fraught with
liability that the little guys like Grex and M-Net can't afford
the risk, and we the field to the big boys like AOL.
|
janc
|
|
response 78 of 123:
|
Jul 8 02:05 UTC 2000 |
This is something I've been wondering about too. If it were clear to me
that the current practice was illegal, then as a board member, I'd say
we'd have to change the policy, no matter how popular or unpopular it
is.
Of the two attorneys we have here, both strongly opposed the policy, but
I didn't think either was saying it was flatly illegal. More like
paternalistic, inconsistant with the ideal of free speech, and legally
questionable.
Much as I'd like to see the policy changed, I'd rather it not happen by
board fiat after the vote failed. Probably the board does need to get
active in trying to get a better sense of the legal defensibility of the
current policy. If it isn't up to snuff, then I'd prefer to see the
members choose how to change it.
I don't think this issue can be set aside at this point.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 79 of 123:
|
Jul 8 05:26 UTC 2000 |
I think it's possible to get away with quite a bit, provided you're acting
in good faith (which you aren't in this case) and are willing to fix problems
once they're pointed out to you (which remains to be seen).
Is what you're doing "illegal," in the sense of violating a criminal statute?
No. Copyright violations permit the copyright holder to file a civil suit
seeking damages, an injunction, or both. (There is such a thing as a criminal
copyright violation, but I don't think what Grex is doing qualifies.) Are
you violating people's copyrights? Yes, as soon as someone asks you to remove
their material and you refuse as your policy requires you to.
Re #76: What would be the point? The Paying Members have spoken.
Re #77: Consulting an attorney is a good idea. There are even a few who
participate on Grex and have not been part of this debate, so they
know the environment well and shouldn't be biased.
Re #78: I've said this before, but I should say it again: I have a J.D.
and significant Net law experience, as well as coursework and
some practical contact with intellectual property issues, but I
am not an attorney. I haven't taken the bar yet (and may never,
because I'm pretty busy consulting and don't need to be an attorney
to do what I do). (Mandatory disclaimer, along with "Everything
I have said on this subject is personal opinion, not legal advice.
Go get a lawyer with relevant expertise.")
|
scg
|
|
response 80 of 123:
|
Jul 8 07:29 UTC 2000 |
As somebody who voted against the proposed motion, I should point out that
a no vote does not establish a policy. I voted agaiinst it because I didn't
like some specific things about it, which is not to say that I wouldn't support
a similar policy in the future.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 81 of 123:
|
Jul 8 07:33 UTC 2000 |
Would you care to comment on which specific things you didn't like?
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 82 of 123:
|
Jul 8 14:31 UTC 2000 |
Re #80: Steve, you have a policy: /bbs/censored is publicly accessible.
If a staff member were to go change its perms so people couldn't
read it, they would be told to change it back. A policy is still
a policy even if your paying members didn't vote on it.
|
remmers
|
|
response 83 of 123:
|
Jul 8 14:40 UTC 2000 |
(Hm, discussion of this issue seems to have a way of floating from
from item to item. Now it's in the "search engines" item. It'd be
nice if it stayed in one place so people could easily refer to all
of it and other ongoing discussions didn't get sidetracked, but
obviously that's not happening.)
One thing we could address right now is better informing users as
to what "scribble" actually does. That wouldn't conflict with the
recent vote, and I think there was concensus that this would be
reasonable before this became a major issue spanning multiple
items.
I agree with Jan that the board shouldn't overturn a vote except
in extreme cases, like something that is blatantly illegal. That
would negate the concept of member-decided policy. How about
proceeding as follows:
(a) Consult an attorney with expertise in copyright law and online
communications. Preferably a specialist, although I don't know
how easy such a person would be to find. Preferably someone
not on Grex, so that they wouldn't be biased and could supply
a fresh perspective. Preferably a face-to-face meeting where
we could get feedback on the options that have been proposed
in discussions, ask follow-up questions, get clarification.
(b) Present the results of the consultation to the users. Then, as
Jan proposes in #78, the members could decide on the policy.
I have no idea if the cost of this would be within range of Grex's
budget.
This should be an agenda item for the next board meeting, which I
believe is July 24.
|
mary
|
|
response 84 of 123:
|
Jul 8 17:23 UTC 2000 |
I agree with John's suggested course of action. We can
afford a consultation and need one at this point.
|
jp2
|
|
response 85 of 123:
|
Jul 8 17:23 UTC 2000 |
This response has been erased.
|
russ
|
|
response 86 of 123:
|
Jul 9 01:23 UTC 2000 |
Having lost in the democratic process, you're willing to destroy
Grex with legal bills just so you can have your way? Are you THAT
afraid that M-Net can't compete for mindshare (as opposed to s***d***
share)? You might want to watch out for Andover.net, which runs
Slashdot; Slashdot has NO mechanism for an author to de-publish text
once entered, and I'm sure they'd be seriously interested in avoiding a
decision which would leave them in someone's sights. The amount of
legal support Grex might get from them, among others, could surprise
you.
Someone should have taught you that you catch a lot more flies with
honey than with vinegar. But since you insist, I propose that you
get what you want... with enough vinegar to make it distasteful.
(Fair's fair.) See item 188.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 87 of 123:
|
Jul 9 03:18 UTC 2000 |
No, I'm not willing to sue Grex. Others, however, might be.
(And I *think* you'll find that /. has some interesting legal language
somewhere on that site licensing them to keep publishing user text.)
(You *could* do that here, of course, if you only care about legal risks,
not basic rights.)
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 88 of 123:
|
Jul 9 04:26 UTC 2000 |
Well, I can't find anything on /. -- but that doesn't mean they're safe, it
just means that they haven't had the issue come up yet. Salon.com's "BBS"
does permit people to remove their own posts, by the way.
|
prp
|
|
response 89 of 123:
|
Jul 9 14:44 UTC 2000 |
About all i know about copyrights and electronic communication:
Q: When somebody uses a dial-up line to infringe on a copyright,
can the phone company be held liable?
A: Well, there are grounds for a suit, but I doubt it would be
successful.
It seems that the copyright law is written so that anyone with
any involvement is liable. That would include typesetters in the
a traditional case.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 90 of 123:
|
Jul 9 17:25 UTC 2000 |
Actually, the phone company is about the only party you can be sure is
immune -- it's a common carrier. (ISPs have an immunity for material
posted by users, but it explicitly doesn't include copyright or trademark
infringement. They're still liable for those.)
|
gull
|
|
response 91 of 123:
|
Jul 9 19:57 UTC 2000 |
So if the item in question is posted on an indexed conference, are you then
going to sue Google.com to force them to remove their cached copy, too?
Stuff you stick on the web is stored in all kinds of places, just like
newspaper articles are archived in libraries. You can claim all you want
that that's an irrelevant analogy, but it seems pretty parallel to me. The
only difference is that libraries keep stuff for decades, and I suspect
Google's cache is turned over more often than that.
|
pfv
|
|
response 92 of 123:
|
Jul 9 22:03 UTC 2000 |
I'd say "Grex ain't Google; Neither Grex or Google are Uselessnet".
Now, if grex *IS* uselessnet (or if google is) - then fine: the
uselessnet rules apply.
Meanwhile, grex ain't "the net", and neither grex or picospan, nor
Backtalk are uselessnet.
It's not only the legalist mumbo-jumbo, it also is what Grex is
and where Grex is going/wants to go..
|
gull
|
|
response 93 of 123:
|
Jul 10 03:27 UTC 2000 |
The interesting thing is I actually was talked into supporting depermitting
the log, by the debate here. I still support it. What I take issue with is
jmsaul's current techniques of bringing in legal points that are only sort
of relevent, calling people names, and threatening legal action against
Grex. These are not the actions of someone who cares about a system too
much to let it make a bad choice; these are the actions of someone who can't
stand not getting their way. No one who really cared about Grex's fate
would threaten to sue the place. I think it's bad form.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 94 of 123:
|
Jul 10 04:07 UTC 2000 |
Look -- I said I was getting annoyed enough by people picking at me to
consider it. I've also said elsewhere, and I'll say it here, that I have no
intention of suing Grex. I'm really pissed off, because your paying
members made a stupid decision. There are times when I might enjoy
seeing a suit just to watch the smug smiles wiped off the faces of certain
Grexers, but it is in no way worth the effort it would take on my part to
haul you guys into court... plus, I honestly don't want to see Grex
destroyed anyway. All I'm planning on doing is leaving, because a system
that won't let people control their own text is not a system I can support
in any way.
However: legal points such as copyright or liability for defamatory postings
that Grex refuses to allow the poster to remove *are* potentially relevant
whether you like it or not. Grex doesn't exist in a vacuum; the laws of
the US apply to it, and someday, someone -- not me -- might wind up in a
situation where they feel they have to make use of them. You need to know
these things, especially when several people have made assertions about
ownership of posts that are blatantly false and could lead to very bad
decisions if they're believed.
|
eeyore
|
|
response 95 of 123:
|
Jul 10 04:25 UTC 2000 |
Just out of curiousity: How many other systems let you go in and erase your
posts at a later date?
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 96 of 123:
|
Jul 10 04:35 UTC 2000 |
M-Net does, and has since 1991. Some Web-based systems do, others don't.
(Salon.com's Table Talk does. Slashdot doesn't appear to. I don't know that
either of those is exactly analogous to Grex.) I have no idea what the
various web-based systems do if a user asks them to remove something. My
guess is that they do it, because it's less hassle and doesn't really hurt
them unless they start getting so many requests it overloads their staff.
|
aruba
|
|
response 97 of 123:
|
Jul 10 05:31 UTC 2000 |
(I agree with #93.) I don't understand why any dispute over removing text
would ever escalate as far as a lawsuit. We can certainly avoid that by
having a policy that says someone who really really really wants their text
removed from the censored log can ask the staff to do so, and staff can do
it, provided the requester is the poster, yadda yadda yadda. Whatever.
We're not running a country here - we're allowed to allow for special cases.
It doesn't make sense to structure a policy around something that might
happen once in a great while, when we can deal with that easily on a
case-by-case basis.
|
jp2
|
|
response 98 of 123:
|
Jul 10 12:25 UTC 2000 |
This response has been erased.
|
md
|
|
response 99 of 123:
|
Jul 10 13:22 UTC 2000 |
Re #94: Now you're saying, "I have no intention of suing Grex." That's
good, but I think what you said before was along the lines of, "I have
no intention of suing Grex presently." Slight difference there. I'm
glad you backed down, because you were starting to sound like a
lawyer. ;-)
Anyway, if Grex isn't going to deperm the censored log (my own
preference), then when is someone going to post a permanent notice
somwhere alerting everyone that "erase" and "scribble" really
mean "hide"? That can't possibly require a vote, can it?
|