🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3v74jm$3ap@venus.mcs.com>, Karl Denninger <karl@MCS.COM> wrote:
>We do not condone, nor enable willful and knowing copyright infringement 
>or lawbreaking, nor do we wish to have the kind of customer on our service
>who is interested in that kind of material.  
>
>MCSNet is a business which is interested in free discourse and collective
>efforts on the net, but we stop where that effort crosses the line of known
>illegal activity.
>
>Our attorneys are also of the opinion that since we are fully aware of 
>the content, there may also be a liability issue here.  This is untested 
>in court, and many disagree with us.

As I mentioned in a previous post, this is not untested.  Prodigy
lost a libel/defamation case due to their efforts at restricting material
available on their service.

As I recall, a company sued Prodigy and a subscriber over malacious comments
the individual made about the company.  Prodigy lost the case.  They have
expert systems which effective sensor postings of users.  They also have
staff which evaluate the "worthiness" of messages which users bring to their
attention as being illegal, pornographic, etc.

If I was an ISP, what would I do?  I'd make sure users sign a statement
making them responsible for content they put on the net.  I'd also send
certified letters to large software companies, playboy, etc. stating that
your users are responsible for content they put on the net and that
your position is that copyrighted information is not allowed but that you
make no efforts to control the information because of the vast amount of
it.  If you were sued, then this documentation should show a good faith
position of not supporting illegal habits.  I'm not a laywer, so maybe I
have it all wrong.

-John