Legal responsibilities of a message board (in the US mostly)

[kingston]

i did that very thing the other day
http://bit.ly/kNpDGn
here is a copy of the image i posted (so you dont need to register to see it)
http://bit.ly/iHrr0V

Quite interesting. I think this is playing out more like I thought it would. Opinion's can be posted, even if unfavorable. It is a defamatory statement, which is a something posted that is false but posted as fact, that is defamation. But, that fault lies on who posted it. When the publisher can be held accountable at some point is if a statement is made that is false and it was decided to not be removed. But even then you have to be willing to battle it out in court.

Now a curious question is does out of country servers provide any real protection?

 

[Forsaken]

Quite interesting. I think this is playing out more like I thought it would. Opinion's can be posted, even if unfavorable. It is a defamatory statement, which is a something posted that is false but posted as fact, that is defamation. But, that fault lies on who posted it. When the publisher can be held accountable at some point is if a statement is made that is false and it was decided to not be removed. But even then you have to be willing to battle it out in court.

Now a curious question is does out of country servers provide any real protection?

Only as far as removal of the content, but they can go after you directly.

 

[User]

Now a curious question is does out of country servers provide any real protection?

Just placing the server outside the US isn't enough because they can still track ownership of it back to you. As of right now the best places to incorporate and run services you don't want touched by the U.S. are Sweden and Venezuela. Curiously enough Canada and Belgium too have some laws that make it difficult if not impossible for the government to penetrate either the corporate veil or compel a company to disclose who its customers are. http://btguard.com for instance is a good example of how Canadians roll.

Another example I have is a case of a hacker from the Philippines who caused thousands of dollars worth of actual damage to a business as well as loss of reputation etc. and no one did anything about it. The hacker even taunted the business owner with "here's all my info, come and get me", the business owner went to the cops, the cops passed it to the FBI, the FBI got back to the business owner and said that the damage was too low for them to do anything other than make a note of the case and pass the info on to the dudes in the Philippines. They also said that the business owner should not expect to hear back from anyone as such information sharing is done by the thousands and in their experience nothing ever comes of it.

 

[Anthony Parsons]

Suicide message boards have gotten through courts in the US, because the owners are not responsible for providing the means for discussion of such things, nor are they responsible for what adults post onto their forums, for the most part. If someone is knowingly under 13, then you must take action. Medical, above 18 usually Internationally. Stick with commonsense and you are fine.

Geez... how many have tried such nonsense with search engines... they are the means only, they do not write the content contained within their search results and thus provide a service free of charge.

Freedom of the press extends around the world... and unless something is protected by a privacy agreement, you have little worry nowadays. Just don't copy another's work, or as stated already, use snippets IAW existing laws to do so, providing the original source is credited. If you copy the entire news story, then you are at fault for copyright. Simple as that.

I agree with what has been written though... if you have a community that is contentious in nature / topic, that causes such ongoing legal threats, etc... then do a one-off local legal advice and get your facts, get a legal legal policy and cover your arse... and comply with it, and you have nothing to worry about.

I run mental health and medical based communities, and I have been through all sorts of nonsense as you have outlined... and a legal legal policy shuts them down immediately, providing you comply with it yourself.

Otherwise... they may as well turn the web off.

 

[kingston]

Suicide message boards have gotten through courts in the US, because the owners are not responsible for providing the means for discussion of such things, nor are they responsible for what adults post onto their forums, for the most part. If someone is knowingly under 13, then you must take action. Medical, above 18 usually Internationally. Stick with commonsense and you are fine.

Geez... how many have tried such nonsense with search engines... they are the means only, they do not write the content contained within their search results and thus provide a service free of charge.

Freedom of the press extends around the world... and unless something is protected by a privacy agreement, you have little worry nowadays. Just don't copy another's work, or as stated already, use snippets IAW existing laws to do so, providing the original source is credited. If you copy the entire news story, then you are at fault for copyright. Simple as that.

I agree with what has been written though... if you have a community that is contentious in nature / topic, that causes such ongoing legal threats, etc... then do a one-off local legal advice and get your facts, get a legal legal policy and cover your arse... and comply with it, and you have nothing to worry about.

I run mental health and medical based communities, and I have been through all sorts of nonsense as you have outlined... and a legal legal policy shuts them down immediately, providing you comply with it yourself.

Otherwise... they may as well turn the web off.

First, thanks for the info!

Second, I wanted to dive into two points more for you. If you run a news site and repost someone elses entire article BUT give them all the credit and track back to their orginal post (and you pull the article because of their RSS feed) is that breaking a copyright? I wondered about that because they are giving you access TO the article because of the RSS.

Third, I am lost on the legal legal policy thing? Care to explain? I am very good at following the rules if I know what they exactly are. I am surprised there hasnt bent a good set of rules made for forums that spell it all out already of what you can and cannot do. Seems like a lot of forum owners and upstarts would use it. (and I mean the pragmatic practical version of all the laws involved).

 

[kingston]

Only as far as removal of the content, but they can go after you directly.

Me as in personally or me as in the company? And go after me for what exactly?

Approach this question with me knowing that anyone can sue anyone for anything.

 

[jadmperry]

What makes your question very difficult is that there are both state law and federal law issues and a wide variety of potential areas of law that are implicated.

You can draw some general rules quite easily. It is when you get into specifics and the potential liabilities and defenses that things get complicated.

I would say that there are quite a lot of defenses out there and generally risks are low. However, in the right circumstances, there can be liabilities. You need specific facts to analyze the issues. I know this is not very helpful, but that is the reality.

 

[Anthony Parsons]

If you run a news site and repost someone elses entire article BUT give them all the credit and track back to their orginal post (and you pull the article because of their RSS feed) is that breaking a copyright? I wondered about that because they are giving you access TO the article because of the RSS.

How a site publishes their RSS feed is irrelevant. Unless they explicity state something along the lines off: "you are hereby given express permission to republish our content in part or full, providing you acknowledge the source", then state / federal copyright laws trump assumptions based on how software delivers information to you. RSS has always been a method as a reader of news, not republishing rights.

Third, I am lost on the legal legal policy thing? Care to explain?

Someone else already mentioned in this thread... people run around the web copying pieces of disclaimers / legal policies, piecing things together without any real legal knowledge or understanding based on their countries laws. You could be copying something that sounds great, and has legality, in the US, but you are in the UK, or Africa, etc... and regardless where you host, the laws of your physical location apply to you and what you do, not the laws of another country.

Seek legal advice, get an actual legal policy to protect your backside from things your members do... and take action when something is brought to your attention if required. Legal documents need to come from lawyers, especially if you expect them to be argued in the worst case possible, being court.

 

[kingston]

What makes your question very difficult is that there are both state law and federal law issues and a wide variety of potential areas of law that are implicated.

You can draw some general rules quite easily. It is when you get into specifics and the potential liabilities and defenses that things get complicated.

I would say that there are quite a lot of defenses out there and generally risks are low. However, in the right circumstances, there can be liabilities. You need specific facts to analyze the issues. I know this is not very helpful, but that is the reality.

Actually it is very helpful. It helps me understand the types of situations that need to be considered when approaching different situations. Thank you for all your help!

 

[kingston]

How a site publishes their RSS feed is irrelevant. Unless they explicity state something along the lines off: "you are hereby given express permission to republish our content in part or full, providing you acknowledge the source", then state / federal copyright laws trump assumptions based on how software delivers information to you. RSS has always been a method as a reader of news, not republishing rights.

This is a good guideline for me. For our industry on the web I get ALL the traffic. The idea was to bring all the stories together so people had a place to read them (and actually read them for once). I will be sending out some emails to websites and see how they would like to proceed.

Someone else already mentioned in this thread... people run around the web copying pieces of disclaimers / legal policies, piecing things together without any real legal knowledge or understanding based on their countries laws. You could be copying something that sounds great, and has legality, in the US, but you are in the UK, or Africa, etc... and regardless where you host, the laws of your physical location apply to you and what you do, not the laws of another country.

Seek legal advice, get an actual legal policy to protect your backside from things your members do... and take action when something is brought to your attention if required. Legal documents need to come from lawyers, especially if you expect them to be argued in the worst case possible, being court.

I figured at some point I would have to discuss with a lawyer about some preventative stuff. Just wanted to avoid paying for it as long as possible. If I get it done I wouldnt mind posting what all is said and done on here after I finish (legally allowing).

One discussion I had with a friend was the rights of a moderated vs a non-moderated forum. He said if a forum is non-moderated then the provider has little to no legal responsibility for what is posted. But if you moderate a forum then you are no longer a provider... you are a publisher.

From a practical standpoint that just doesnt work. Unmoderated forums for segments of people who are very passionate will disintegrate themselves. But a small bit of control can encourage growth and make the environment healthy, even if the discussions get passionate sometimes.

Anyways, is a non-moderated forum better off than a moderated?

 

[Anthony Parsons]

Moderated vs. non-moderated isn't actually true... because then you are still liable if copyright is infringed, as ignorance is not an excuse in a court of law that you didn't have a valid means of contact upon the site for such legal notifications, whether electronically or conventionally (mail, phone, etc)

Unmoderated communities will also attract a lot of spam, which will pretty much drive the essential basis of the site down into the ground and you're wasting your time, as you stated.... moderated will attract and inspire growth.