Re: [LAU] CENSORING public archives (Was: Problem post)

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: <linux-audio-user@...>
Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2010 - 10:33 am

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Am 03.02.2010 00:36, schrieb Rob:

The Chinese have asying:

"2 things do not return to you:

1: the arrow you have released from the bow's string
2: the word you have spoken

"

I consider it a quality of mailing lists, that you cannot easily doctor
or erase, what you have sent. Of course one should switch some brains
"ON" before sending, even though I did not do so in each and every case
I posted, I still see this principle at work when I read mailing lists
and I like it.

For the legal issues:
in Germany, someone, who adminsters a website or any other
communication-device accessable by the public is responsible for
unlawfull posts as a so-called "Mitstörer" (co-offender). That is: such
a person is not directly liable for any offending posts but has to act
within 48h when he/she is informed, that a post is offending someone or
affecting the law. And the admin has to do so in the limits of what is
actually possible for him/her. You have to remove posts from you own
site and maybe inform mirroring sites that you know of, then you did
what you can and thats it. The rest is between the lawyer and the OP,
who's mail-adress is known.

So IF a lawyer sends you a letter (usually a signed one on paper),
telling you the post found at this or that url, is offending someone,
the lawyer works for, you have to act whithin 48h after recieving the
mail. If it is not a lawyer but a OP, that finds out his/her own post
offending/unlawfull, it is wise, to remove/censor what can be reached,
if you dont, you should be quite sure, that you can make a stand before
court in the sense of: "yes, I did know, that the OP was sure the post
was offending but I did not believe - I choose to wait for a letter from
a lawyer...". In that case the risk, to be at least charged for the
costs of the lawsuit is quite high.

This all goes for german jurisdiction and the rules are only derivatives
of practical jurisdiction, spoken by judges in actual lawsuites, they
are not hardcoded to the law.

I also think, that the risk to loose rights, you do not exercise, is
quite high. So in the given case I see a diclosure of information that
is no disclosure after all, since everybody can interpolate, where the
support for iLocked plug-ins in receptor comes from. So defending the
right of free expression against a case of utter stupidity could be a
good thing to do here. Still the post is from the OP and if he gets in
trouble, because you want to fight stupidity, it is a different matter...

best regards

"I did not say that - and also I was not here...."

the navigator(C)(R) in Frank Herberts "Dune"(C)(R) as adapted in a
Film(C)(R) by David Lynch....

;-)
HZN
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.12 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAktpUNYACgkQ1Aecwva1SWOKVwCZAWt0c1DHNfL6EYWw0MIEiYR0
1D0AmweXhrtjJQgCRSI6qdEEdp+s4NDC
=JUTf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[LAU] CENSORING public archives (Was: Problem post), Marc-Olivier Barre, (Tue Feb 2, 12:29 pm)
Re: [LAU] CENSORING public archives (Was: Problem post), Josh Lawrence, (Tue Feb 2, 6:05 pm)
Re: [LAU] CENSORING public archives (Was: Problem post), Andreas Kuckartz, (Tue Feb 2, 8:33 pm)
[LAU] , Marc-Olivier Barre, (Tue Feb 2, 9:28 pm)
Re: [LAU] Solved ? CENSORING public archives, Josh Lawrence, (Tue Feb 2, 10:54 pm)
Re: [LAU] Solved ? CENSORING public archives, Jack O'Quin, (Tue Feb 2, 10:46 pm)
Re: [LAU] Solved ? CENSORING public archives, Jörn Nettingsmeier, (Tue Feb 2, 10:27 pm)
Re: [LAU] CENSORING public archives (Was: Problem post), Arnold Krille, (Tue Feb 2, 5:30 pm)
Re: [LAU] CENSORING public archives (Was: Problem post), Mike Mazarick, (Tue Feb 2, 2:34 pm)
Re: [LAU] CENSORING public archives (Was: Problem post), Arnold Krille, (Tue Feb 2, 1:07 pm)
Re: [LAU] CENSORING public archives (Was: Problem post), Marc-Olivier Barre, (Tue Feb 2, 1:50 pm)
Re: [LAU] CENSORING public archives (Was: Problem post), Julien Claassen, (Tue Feb 2, 11:21 pm)
Re: [LAU] CENSORING public archives (Was: Problem post), Hartmut Noack, (Wed Feb 3, 10:33 am)
[LAU] Forum-like user edition of posts (Was: CENSORING publi..., Marc-Olivier Barre, (Tue Feb 2, 11:36 pm)
Re: [LAU] CENSORING public archives (Was: Problem post), Luke Peterson, (Tue Feb 2, 12:41 pm)
Re: [LAU] CENSORING public archives (Was: Problem post), Marc-Olivier Barre, (Tue Feb 2, 1:57 pm)
Re: [LAU] CENSORING public archives (Was: Problem post), Monty Montgomery, (Tue Feb 2, 1:17 pm)
Re: [LAU] CENSORING public archives (Was: Problem post), Monty Montgomery, (Tue Feb 2, 1:38 pm)
Re: [LAU] CENSORING public archives (Was: Problem post), Nedko Arnaudov, (Tue Feb 2, 1:17 pm)