[IP] Re: Any lawyers :-) (debunking editing myths)

[David Farber <dave@farber.net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Seth Finkelstein <sethf@sethf.com>
Date: July 27, 2009 5:54:19 PM EDT
To: David Farber <dave@farber.net>
Cc: ip <ip@v2.listbox.com>, Stagg Newman <lsnewmanjr@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [IP] Any lawyers :-) (debunking editing myths)

	Read lawyer Eric Goldman's material on this issue:

http://www.ericgoldman.org/Speeches/47usc230c2.pdf
(from http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2009/07/47_usc_230c2_ta.htm )

http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2008/05/content_generat.htm
"Many people operate under the outdated myth that a site must choose
to be either a publisher or a passive conduit"

http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2009/02/2008_cyberlaw_y.htm
"One of the long-standing Cyberlaw memes is that websites must either
be passive conduits to avoid liability or active editors to manage
their liability, but if a website chooses the latter, the website is
liable for any editorial mistakes. That is, if the website edits its
site but misses something, it's fully liable for what it missed. This
simply isn't true under 47 USC 230, which allows websites to choose to
be passive, active or anything in between without varying liability."

http://www.ericgoldman.org/Speeches/230intro.pdf

--
Seth Finkelstein  Consulting Programmer  http://sethf.com
Infothought blog - http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/
Interview: http://sethf.com/essays/major/greplaw-interview.php




-------------------------------------------