Comments please

[Paul Markham]

Don't know how many of you went to this seminar or have read this article, but it is very interesting.

Some of the lawyers seem to be arguing that there should be different laws for the net because it does not control itself. Funny to hear a lawyer argue for less control.

http://www.ynotmasters.com/news/ynew...502/page3.html

Your comments would be appreciated not just by me but others who use the board.

[kmanrox]

charly, if this wasnt such a useful post id call you a pussy

[GFED]

I think it's wrong... just as wrong as holding the webmaster responsible for content in his message forums and what happens off his forums (bigdoggie). Wouldn't this mean that the SEs would also be responsible for every link they have in their database?

[Paul Markham]

Originally posted by kmanrox
charly, if this wasnt such a useful post id call you a pussy

You will call me a pussy anyway

GFED
The thing about being held responsible, for what is on your site or linked to your site. Does that not become enforceble after you have been legally informed?

For instance;
You cannot hold a newspaper owner owner responsible if someone takes out an ad on a stolen car. But if you tell him the car is stolen and he just ignores you, then he is responsible. The fact that he has 1 or 10,000 classified ads is not a defense.

The article seemed to show that the lawyers were arguing for less laws and controls than the rest of the world.

A .sex status is can be controlled, anyone running an sex site not in that catagory is infringing the rules and the site comes down.

Any site openly spamming adult material to "non adult opted in mailing lists" will automatically get the site taken down.

The Internets reluctance to abide by general rules will mean Bush can push through laws that we will not like and will impede business in the US.

Who do you want to draw up the rules, Bush or us?

[greentea]

Charlie ya a pussy!

[GFED]

Yes, a warning would be good enough for me.

[Joe Sixpack]

Interesting article Charly, you pussy!

[Paul Markham]

Originally posted by GFED
Yes, a warning would be good enough for me.

Right and if the guy refuses to take notice of the warning he is in trouble. That's what got AC shot down, they ignored the DMCA. I think, but the lawyers failed to mention that.