Subject:
|
Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Sat, 19 Feb 2000 18:30:01 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
LPIENIAZEK@NOVERA.COMspamcake
|
Viewed:
|
1021 times
|
| |
|
|
Frank Filz wrote:
> > - 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?
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) and Compuserve (which didn't) had on
this.
I did some projects at Prodigy back before it was Prodigy Classic, back
before there was a Web, in fact, and this came up.
To repeat, ToSsing someone is not exercising editorial control. It's
control of membership, which is a different thing.
> Or was Huw not asked to cancel any posts? It certainly was suggested
> to him that he remove the material referenced by his post.
Suggested, but not mandated I don't think. Todd actually skirted things
by considering cancellation back then. He needs to be careful there,
once he starts, once he cancels even one post, he's exercising editorial
control, and you can't go back. At least I don't think you can.
Note well that I am not saying that editorial control is not an
appropriate thing to do (1). It may well be. But eyes open, please,
don't back into editorial control accidentally. In particular, the
moderated group idea I bat around is explicitly editorial control if it
cancels posts instead of restricting posting privs. In fact, I am not
sure but what restricting posts in some but not all groups may be
construed as editorial control as well. Need to be careful of precedent
we set.
> Of course one thing which is good for Lugnet's exposure to liability is an
> apparently very good relationship with TLC.
I'm not worried about TLC so much as I am some random org that decides
it has been libeled and then sues the perceived perp. Prodigy was sued
at least once. So was CIS but they got out of the suit quickly by saying
"we don't exercise editorial control, your beef is with the poster and
the poster only". Yet they still ToSsed people all the time.
In fact, the close association with TLC may cause TLC to be dragged into
a suit as a defendant if Lugnet doesn't carefully maintain its
independence. That may be a good thing, or it may not be. They have
better lawyers but may not be too happy to be dragged in.
1 - a double negative, if you're counting...
--
Larry Pieniazek - lpieniazek@mercator.com - http://my.voyager.net/lar
http://www.mercator.com. Mercator, the e-business transformation company
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to lugnet.
Note: this is a family forum!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
| Larry Pieniazek wrote in message <38AE1C47.71263742@v...er.net>... (...) 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). (...) I (...) (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
|
|
|
|
