From: Steve Schear <schear@lvcm.com>
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 09:42:46 +0800
To: Robert Hettinga <rah@shipwright.com>
Subject: Re: ISPs now responsible for Pirated Material
In-Reply-To: <v04020a2eb268a6363cdb@[139.167.130.246]>
Message-ID: <v04003a00b26aa0e6e5c5@[24.1.50.17]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



>Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 07:29:38 -0500
>To: general@la-ma.org
>From: Doug Krick <dkrick@bbnplanet.com>
>Subject: ISPs now responsible for Pirated Material
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Sender: owner-general@la-ma.org
>Precedence: bulk
>
>http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,28357,00.html?st.ne.fd.mdh
>
>Summary:  IF a local ISP doesn't register with the goverment, per a new law
>Clinton signed this week, the ISP can be held legally responsible for any
>pirated material that may be on their site.

Not really a problem. Its one thing to require a contact person. It's quite
another to get an ISP to provide sufficient resources to adequately police
its feed. In many of the Usenet .warez. groups, for example, postings
expire after only a few hours/days. By the time action is taken its gone
anyway.

The ISPs made a very good argument, in the SC CDA hearings, that policing
their feeds and access was impractical. Sounds like this could be pretty
much the same problem.

I wonder how Eternity servers, using Usenet references, would be treated
under these regs?

--Steve