Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/04/10
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]You are right.....thousands of new servers around the world have thousands of illegal images containing copyrighted photos, child porn, celebrity rip-offs, etc. That was my argument exactly, but apparently it had been raised before in a case in Texas last year. The courts ruled that a "news server" is placed on auto-pilot and maintained with NO editorial control whatsoever. Anyone can post anything. My situation is different, said the judge, because I have full control over the content on my server and can change or destroy it at any time. Just because I "chose" not to edit what was being posted by members did not excuse me of my obligation to do so. At 08:46 PM 4/9/98 -0400, Dan Cardish wrote: >At 04:12 PM 09-04-98 -0700, you wrote: >>Yes, Playboy claimed in their suit that I was also burning CD-R >>disks full of their images and that I was copying some Pamela >>Anderson CDROM and selling it. They made many unfounded >>accusations of this type which I subsequently opposed in court. >>All these CDROM allegations and scanning magazine allegations >>are not true and did not affect me in court. In fact, Playboy >>did not even bring them up in court. >> > >If so, then the whole lawsuit seems to be built on foundations of sand. >Even if you were guitly of distributing usenet images which belonged to >Playboy, the fact remains that the images were already in existence on >countless USENET servers around the world. Essentially every ISP has a >server with a hard disk that contains, and any moment, thousands of >copyrighted images. They are distributers of that stuff, no more or less >than you. Why doesn't Playboy go after them? (Maybe they'd lose??) > >Dan C. > Francesco Sanfilippo, Five Senses Productions webmaster@5senses.com http://www.5senses.com/