Condor
Sep 2003
Registered
|
Lots of Reading
X69, not really sure if you are still receiving those letters. I do believe that they don’t have anything that they can do to your site, just as long as you don’t post those jpgs yourself (let someone else post those jpg for you – with or without your knowledge – as what the following case was presided on).
I am not sure either whether you have read the case of United States of America VS. David LaMacchia, wherein he was charged with copyright laws as being a Sysop of a BBS which was distributing bootleg software, but was later on dismissed. It’s an old case, not sure if the law has changed.
United States of America VS. David LaMacchia
Here are some arguments that his lawyer mentioned:
It is well-known that certain classified
advertisements for "_dating services_" found commonly in
some newspapers are really covers for high-class
*prostitution* rings. Yet only the people who actually
run the prostitution services are prosecuted for those
violations of law. Editors and publishers of the
newspapers are *not* prosecuted on some legal theory
that their classified sections -- and therefore they
themselves -- somehow "aided" or "conspired with" the
prostitution rings in the criminal prostitution
enterprise, even if the editors and publishers were well
aware of the fact that their newspapers were being mis-
used for an illegal purpose.
It is well-known that gambling "numbers" syndicates
utilize newspaper reports of scores of the outcomes of
certain athletic events, as the basis for illegal
sports-betting operations. Only the bookies are
criminally prosecuted for such gambling activity. The
newspapers -- their editors, publishers, and reporters
included -- are never criminally prosecuted for the
illegal activities of those who thus use the published
sports reports.
In nearly every lending library in the country,
there are one or more photocopying machines sitting in
the midst of large number of books, many of which are
copyrighted. Librarians surely understand that a
certain number of people who make photocopies on those
machines are copying *copyrighted* material, perhaps in
violation of the copyright laws. There does not appear
to be a criminal prosecution of any such librarians for
"aiding" or "facilitating" breaches of the copyright
laws.
The owner or manager of a bookstore may not be
criminally prosecuted for the distribution of obscene
material if, in a bookstore carrying a wide variety of
printed materials, a certain quantity of those materials
contain obscene portions. It does not even matter
whether the bookstore owner or manager suspects that
some of the material in the store may contain obscene
matter. It is not his or her legal responsibility to
monitor and censor such materials, according to the
United States Supreme Court. (_Smith v. California_,
361 U.S. 147 (1959))
Additionally, Letters by David LaMancchia’s lawyer
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
09-03-2003 06:48 AM
