[thelist] Copywrite question.....

snowdux at adelphia.net snowdux at adelphia.net
Sun Jan 27 18:59:01 CST 2002


[ Converted text/enriched to text/plain ]
Another thought......

Just in terms of getting any just or unjust copyright infringement blame, an
easy solution is to not moderate the forums. This will make you not liable for
anything said in your forums, and place any blame due to the individual users,
who are not likely to be prosecuted. If you moderate in any manner, then you
are liable, but if you do not moderate then you are protected. This is why it
is a hard decision to decide to moderate a forum, becuase IF you moderate,
THEN you must be willing to take responsibility for all things placed there.
At the bottom of this email I included a piece of a summary from the court
case, Stratton-Oakmont & Porush v. Prodigy, that I got off eff.org. I think
the best scenario is to not moderate the forums, and only troubleshoot
technical issues, unless of course you are running into abuse issues.
therefore you are not held responsible for the actions of your users.
-Bill

In a case that could have major ramifications for BBS system operators and
Internet newsgroup moderators, a New York state trial court ruled that
communications service provider Prodigy Services Company may be liable for
potentially libelous statements made by one of its users. Prodigy was sued by
the securities investment banking firm of Stratton Oakmont, Inc., and its
president, Daniel Porush, for statements made by an unidentified poster on
Prodigy's Money Talk bulletin board. The statements claimed that Stratton
Oakmont committed criminal and fraudulant acts in connection with the initial
public offering of stock of Solomon-Page, Ltd. Stratton Oakmont and Porush
sued Prodigy, the volunteer moderator of the Money Talk forum, and the
anonymous user who made the postings. Prodigy asked to be dismissed from the
case on the claim that Prodigy could not be held responsible for the postings
of its users, but the judge disagreed and issued the ruleing in response to
plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgement. On May 24, 1995, the court
held that Prodigy had editorial control over the messages in the Money Talk
forum and was therefore liable for the content of those messages. According to
the New York Supreme Court (which is a trial level court in New York),
Prodigy's policy of systematically monitoring messages made it liable for the
content of these messages. In addition, the court held that since Prodigy
directed and controlled the actions of volunteer Board Leaders, at least for
the limited purpose of monitoring and editing the Money Talk bulletin board,
Prodigy was responsible for the actions of its Board Leaders.


























More information about the thelist mailing list