Need a disclaimer to avoid being sued

Discussion in 'Feedback' started by NoMoreOptions, Jan 26, 2004.

  1. ET needs a disclaimer in many obvious place such home page, every post, and even frequent popups to caution readers. The information on ET is overall great but still has a mix of misleading, partial, or even dangerous substance. IMO, if ET does not do something about it, it could get sued by someone for their loss including investment, physical or psychological health, or even human lives.

    Just a friendly reminder.
  2. Baron

    Baron ET Founder

    The United States Congress established laws on that subject back in 1996. It specifically states that if a user participates on an interactive service such as ours, that user is solely responsible for the content of his posts, not the provider of the service. If it weren't for this law, sites like yahoo, aol, etc. would be getting sued every day because of idiots who use those sites to post scams and other bs.
  3. Tell this to the Napster attourneys.

    The law is interpretive...and there is always a risk.....the advice given you should not be discounted Baron.

    Michael B.


  4. totally off base. napster's sole purpose was the "sharing" of copyrighted material. although, at times, some copyrighted material may potentially be passed off here as original - there is no way that the purpose / function of this site can be compared to napster.


    surfer :)
  5. So if I loan a CD to a friend, I am breaking the law?

    Surf, you are misquoting Napsters sole purpose.....that is an interpretation. Sharing for profit might be a valid argument, though.

    Don't get me wrong....MY interpretation is that if the artists don't make any money then why should they share their music? They are entitled to make a profit....its just that their industry makes too much off of THEIR talent IMHO.

    Michael B.

    P.S. the deeper meaning here is it would be wise for this site to be prudent. You will notice they exercise SELECTIVE responsibilities in moderation of the content.....The law and the weights of justice can not be interpreted by living room contributors such as myself, but the fact that there is an attempt in moderation here in ET, is the stepping stone to an opening argument to some bright attorney representing his sue-happy client.

  6. If you give surf your quikbooks CD yes you are breaking the law
  7. Well, yes. Did Napster share music or software or both? Also, is there a difference with copyright laws on those two items? I never used Napster and this is an honest question.

    Michael B.

    P.S. Who is Kazaa? I truly am out of my league to debate these things and excuse me. (I probably spelled Kazaa incorrectly too)
    You see, I am this Savant who purchases everything cash when I find value. I like to register and get updates....I like to exhaust and use every portion of the program, or listen to the music I purchase and make archived copies of it.

  8. Thanks for reminding me. I have to pay a few visits to verify some data.
  9. Not true. You can give anyone software that you legally own, provided that an additional license or seat is purchased with it. Or, you could uninstall your copy of it and allow your friend to install it on his computer.
  10. Andre


    randynutts: If you give surf your quickbooks CD yes you are breaking the law.

    What Alphie said. With software, it would depend on wether you're both running and using it on a regular basis. I can have my copy of Quickbooks on two different machines, my desktop and laptop. But technically I can't be using them simultaneously.

    ElectricSavant: you are misquoting Napsters sole purpose.....that is an interpretation. Sharing for profit might be a valid argument, though.

    Profit has nothing to do with it, really. It's about scale. People could be swaping kiddie porn via, a free internet service, and they wouldn't be making a penny. But if they know about it, what's more facilitate it, then you can be liable. A post here or there and people communicating their ideas on this scale is what the liability laws adequately address. And as ET doesn't endorse any one person or firm over another, and the advertisers are clear... I'd say we're pretty safe.

    That doesn't mean a yahoo couldn't get it up his skirt to sue. I had a jerk over on AOL make all sorts of accusations. Sent some letters, claiming he was wronged and some such crap. It happens.

    ElectricSavant: So if I loan a CD to a friend, I am breaking the law?

    No. If you bought it and copied some songs for mix tapes, etc., and then loaned it to your friend, you'd still be ok. If he then burns some songs, he's then breaking the law. You get your original copyrighted material back, you're in the clear.

    But I do wonder what would happen if after burning a song or two, you then sold the CD at a used record store. Since you no longer owned a the original work, do you still retain the right to own a copy for yourself?

    I guess I'd say that technically, the answer is no. When you own the original, you have the right to make copies for your own use. But by selling it, you're redistributing it. In stock-terms it would be like saying, I bought 100 shares and held them for 2 years. I tired of the company, so I sold them. But I still expect to get dividends for the life of the company. No, those dividends now go to the new owner of those shares.

    #10     Feb 6, 2004