Subject:
|
Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Sat, 19 Feb 2000 17:29:49 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1058 times
|
| |
|
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote in message <38AE1C47.71263742@voyager.net>...
> - We are not constrained by employment agreements as Lugnetters.
> Ultimately, if you pushed it hard enough, you could lose your job (or be
> dismissed from your contract). Never heard of it happening but it could.
> That's not the case here. We are only(1) in danger of being ToSsed.
Well true. But being ToSsed would be just as effective for keeping things in
control I think (if someone is ToSsed they will no longer be able to abuse
the system).
> - IBM has much deeper pockets. Cancellation means editorial control.
> I've mentioned this before, but there are liability implications of
> exercising editorial control that Todd, I think, wants to avoid. Once
> you exercise it, that's it. Even cancelling only the most egregious IP
> violations means you're exercising control. IBM could do that editing
> thing with impunity, it had the best lawyers money could buy. One
> lawsuit and this whole experiment is over.
I see your point about the liability concerns about editorial control,
however, how different are they when editorial control is excercised by
canceling posts, and when they are exercised by asking people to cancel
posts? Or was Huw not asked to cancel any posts? It certainly was suggested
to him that he remove the material referenced by his post.
Of course one thing which is good for Lugnet's exposure to liability is an
apparently very good relationship with TLC. Of course such relationships can
blow with the wind, and if some future TLC legal department got uppity, it
could ignore the relationship and come at Lugnet with all guns blazing. Of
course, until TLC publishes it's own set reference guide, the single biggest
exposure for liability is pretty safe, and every month which Lugnet
continues to run just enhances that safety since TLC would not have much
recourse to suing Lugnet for mucho bucks because of some loss due to the
Pause database, when TLC has knowingly allowed it to stay there, of course,
if at some future point, TLC asks that it be removed, and it continues to be
available, there could be problems.
Frank
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
| (...) Because the latter is not exercising editorial control. I am not an expert on liability law but you may want to research (and I'm not sure where to send you, exactly) into the different takes that Prodigy (which did exercise editorial control) (...) (25 years ago, 19-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
| (...) I totally agree. Cancellation as a moderating technique, used consistently, worked extremely well in the IBM environment. It's been 5 years since I was there but I ran some fairly controversial FORUMs and had to use the heavy hand of (...) (25 years ago, 19-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
82 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
