🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <f81_9505100734@sawasdi.apana.org.au>,
852!Paul.Feonic@sawasdi.apana.org.au (Paul Feonic) wrote:

>   BTW, how about collecting some of the posted objections and refused
> suggestions together with their answers as an ERR FAQ, which will help
> explain the document.  Especially in explaining why you don't use terms like
> "Inappropriate" or "Legal", and how the different net.rights combine, and
> why responsibilities are not legal requirements...
> 
>   For eg,
> 
>   "Don't 0.0 and 0.2 clash with 0.1, 0.4, 0.7, and 0.9?  How can you
> guarantee access while protecting copyright?"
> 
>      No.  0.0 and 0.2 guarantee your right to access and receive (Barring
>      real world restriction, like money), but does not protect you if you
>      misuse that access.  It does, more importantly, stop _your_ misuse from
>      affecting _my_ access; or mine, yours.  No preemptive censorship.
> 
>      Also 0.2, particularly, lessens the current legal problem where someone
>      can dump something illegal on your system, and have you held
>      accountable. At the very least, it hopefully reminds legislators that
>      any electronic copyright/censorship laws will need to acknowledge the
>      possibility that you didn't know about the material.
> 
>   If you see what I mean.

Great idea.  Paul (or anyone else) are you interested in putting it
together?  I can forward the whole thread to anyone who's interested.

Michael.
--
Dr Michael Baker, EFA Board Chairman   <http://apanix.apana.org.au/~mbaker>
PO Box 5, Flaxley, SA 5153, Australia   Internet:mbaker@apanix.apana.org.au
Ph:08 388 8439 Fax:08 398 2250 [08=+618]   Fidonet:Michael Baker, 3:800/838
For EFA info email efa-info@efa.org.au              Compuserve: 100026,1321