NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/news/sysadmin/1485

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-18 | 3.7 KB

Xref: sparky news.sysadmin:1485 news.admin:8597 news.admin.policy:479
Newsgroups: news.sysadmin,news.admin,news.admin.policy
Path: sparky!uunet!looking!brad
From: [e-mail] (Brad Templeton)
Subject: Re: a.b.p.e. distribution
Organization: ClariNet Communications Corp.
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 22:46:08 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Lines: 60

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:
>>the
>>fact remains that Playboy wants the material off systems that are not
>>claiming ownership of the images.
>
>   I don't agree, but parhaps it isn't worth argueing. I haven't heard of

What's to agree or disagree. Playboy has said this, according to news
reports.  You're saying you don't think Playboy has said this, or you don't
think they really want their material off of pirate image boards?

>   What is the easy damage calculation? I'm sure you know more about this
>than I do. How would a monetary figure be calculated?

Well, when somebody's been selling, your damages are, at a minimum, the
sales they had.  EH probably kept records of downloads which they were
required to hand over during discovery.  (Unlike criminal law, there are no
protections against self-incrimination in a lawsuit.)

That's the minimum.  You can then add any additional sales Playboy can
argue they lost, but that's harder to show, which is why EH was an easy
target.
>    A few years ago a prominant user of alt.sex.pictures looked into the
>possibility of becoming moderator of a.s.p.  (I won't give his name because
>I messed it up last time I talked about this). Since he worried about the
>liability problem, he wrote to Playboy, Penthouse, and Hustler to get an idea
>of what they think about the net. The responce was that they wouldn't take
>any action against usenet (at least at that time), but that if a single

If they said this they weren't fully informed.  Usenet isn't an entity, so
it can't have action taken against it, so of course they won't take action.
They probably didn't know this.  Fact remains that they can take action if
there are lots of their images on your disks, and they can show you knew
they were there and knew they were pirated and didn't remove them.

>   Oh, but they have to exist in the real world, not in an idealized market
>driven capitalist paradise. They have no expectation of controlling
>distribution of thier images in this case, and even if they are in the legal
>right, they won't be able to stop it.

Don't be silly.  Of course they have an expectation of controlling
distribution of their images.  You may be stupid to leave your keys in
your car.  It is still car theft if people jump in and drive away.

>   Your above example of the Penthouse BBS. If they succeed in killing a.b.p.e
>because it conflicts with thier market, then it will signal The Death Of The
>Net as complete as it will ever be. A.b.p.e is wildly popular, and whatever

Hmm.  I coined a phrase about such predictions some time ago.  I don't think
I even need to say it here.  You're right.  If USENET is about posting
other people's property, then it will change.  Dirty pictures are popular,
and the desire people have for them has made sites tolerate this group,
when alt.binaries.commercial-packages.pirated would never be tolerated.

But if you ask most people if the ability to post pirated stuff is a major
or even important part of the net's character, I don't think they would
agree with you.  Instead, they are willing to take part when they see a good
dirty picture go by.
--
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Sunnyvale, CA 408/296-0366