| |
> Sites only have 2 choices. Either they control things or they don't. This is a
> controlled site, using very effective and benign mechanisms, but it's
> controlled nevertheless and thus does not have the "common carrier" defense
> (in the US legal system, I'm not talking about barbarian states like Canada or
> the UK :-) ) against libel and defamation that an uncontrolled site does (if
> it still does, under CDA as another poster points out, it may be a moot
> distinction).
To claify, this distinction was reiterated in DCMA (sorry don't have USs # for
it), so is still offerable as protection (witness Napster as a example)
James P
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: 2001 Set info
|
| (...) What, are you TRYING to annoy me here? You've edited Todd's and my words by trimming away most of the sentence to make it look like I am agreeing with Todd's definition. Gentle readers, do not be fooled by Scott's action here. Scott, I'm (...) (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
176 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
