What Files are Legal for Distribution on a BBS? ----------------------------------------------- Copyright (C) 1989 Exec-PC All Rights Reserved From Exec-PC Multi-user BBS, 414-964-5160 Bob Mahoney, SYSOP ----------------------------------------- Software that is a commercial product, sold in stores or via mailorder, that does not contain a statement saying it is OK to give copies to others is NOT legal for distribution on a BBS. Example: Lotus 1-2-3 is a commercial product, it is copyrighted, and the copyright notice states you MAY NOT copy it for others. Example: PC-Write (the Shareware version) is also copyrighted, but the copyright statement clearly states you MAY make unlimited copies for your friends. TRICKS TO MAKE AN EDUCATED GUESS: Sometimes it is difficult to guess whether or not some software or diskette is legal for BBS distribution. There are a few obvious guidelines I use on the Exec-PC BBS: There is no documentation: Probably an illegal copy. A Shareware author will always provide documentation with his product. If he does not, nobody will be willing to make a monetary contribution to his efforts. If the documentation takes the form of a very short (one or two screen long) and sketchy README file, be suspicious. The software is probably a hack (illegal pirated copy) of a commercial product, and someone wrote up a small hint file to help other pirates run the software. The software is too good to be true: It probably IS too good to be true! A good game, a good database, a good utility of any type, requires at least dozens of hours to write. The really good stuff requires thousands of hours to write, sometimes dozens of MAN YEARS to write. Nobody is going to give this away for free! If you get a copy of a game and it seems to good to be true, I bet it is an illegal copy. The software does strange things to your disk drives: For example, when it is run, the A: drive or B: drive spin for a moment, even though there is no disk present. This sometimes indicates the software is looking for a key disk, but someone has modified the software so the key disk is not needed. This is probably illegal software. The software does not have an easy escape to DOS, no EXIT command: This usually means the software is illegal, someone has hacked it to make it run, but it was too difficult to add a proper escape to DOS to the commercial product. DON'T GET ME WRONG, I am making it sound as if ALL software is illegal. This is not the case. It is usually very easy to recognize a fine, legal package, since the author is proud of his work and usually puts his name, his favorite BBS number, a disclaimer, a Shareware notice, or some other hint into the package. It may be as simple as an initial screen saying "This is Shareware written by so-and-so, this is Shareware, if you like it please send $XX to the following address", and other text of that type. If in doubt, ask the Sysop! END OF INFO >--------=====END=====--------< ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ******************************************************* * PHILE 4: SYSOPS' LIABILITY * ******************************************************* ** PIRATE reprints the following that arrived over the BITNET lines. Following with our policy, it is printed exactly as received. Only the date of the conference was removed. ** /*/ SYSLAW: THE SYSOPS LEGAL MANUAL CONFERENCE /*/ ================================================== Editors' Note: The following conference took place on GEnie. The only changes we have made to any of this text is the format and spelling errors. An additional note, I just finished reading the book. It is interesting and I encourage all BBS operators to purchase it. If you are interested contact: LLM PRESS, 150 Broadway (Suite 607), New York, NY 10038. (212) 766-3785) FORMAL CONFERENCE <[Holly] HS> Welcome to our formal conference with Jonathon Wallace, <JON.WALLACE> Thanks very much for inviting me.... <[Holly] HS> Can you tell us a little about yourself and your book before we start? <JON.WALLACE> I am a lawyer in private practice in New York City specializing in computer related matters including BBS law. I am the co-author with Rees Morrison, of SYSLAW: The Sysop's Legal Manual, and editor of The Computer Law Letter, a bimonthly newsletter. <[Mel] NIGHTDIVER> Jon, would you talk a bit about where free speech stops and libel begins. We obviously want to be able to criticize a product freely but I guess we have to stop at calling the developer names or spreading rumors that he is going bankrupt. Where does libel start? and what is the sysops liability for allowing such messages to stand? <JON.WALLACE> Libel varies from state to state. In many places its a knowingly false statement. In others it may even be a negligently false statement. The responsibility of a sysop is, in my opinion about equivalent to the liability of a newspaper publisher for a comment someone else makes in his paper. Constitutional law says that a public figure can only recover against a newspaper for a libel done with "actual malice". <[Mel] NIGHTDIVER> For our purposes who would you say is a public figure a developer pushing his product? A publisher of an online magazine? The sysop? <JON.WALLACE> There is no precise definition. Any of those might be held to be a public figure, as would your town councilman, but not your next door neighbor. <[Mel] NIGHTDIVER> I've heard the sysop's liability in libel compared to a news stand's liability but that boggles my mind because I never heard of a newsstand claiming a compilation copyright. Would you comment on the sysop's position? <JON.WALLACE> Ever since there have been BBS's, people have debated whether a sysop is a publisher, a newsstand, a common carrier, a bartender, etc. A sysop is NOT a common carrier (obligated to carry all messages, can't control content) Nor is a sysop a newsstand (too passive). I think a sysop is essentially a sort of publisher. She has the right to edit and control the contents of the BBS. <DAVESMALL> I've got a few questions, but I'll try not to hog things for others. Awhile ago, I ran into a particularly nasty "anarchy" BBS in New York. It offered files on everything from literally how to poison people to "kitchen improvised plastic explosives". Is offering info like this legal? Is there any legal precedent? <JON.WALLACE> Dave, the law says that "information doesn't kill people.. people kill people." However distasteful, describing how to make poisons is constitutionally protected speech. <[Ralph] ST.REPORT> Evening Counselor, nice to see that information is information and not murderous non-sense. My question is, what recourse, if any does an individual have when they find that certain information has been labeled "overly informative" and has been censored as a result? <JON.WALLACE> Ralph, if you mean censored by the sysop the user really has no recourse. As I said, a sysop has the right to edit, modify and delete the BBS's contents. <[Ralph] ST.REPORT> I see, well a sysop was not the cause in this situation....in fact the sysop was quite fair about the entire matter... much more so than the individual.....I mean as individual to individual. <JON.WALLACE> Who censored the message, then? <[Ralph] ST.REPORT> The message was deleted as a result of the ensuing hulabaloo <-? voluntarily by me. <JON.WALLACE> Ralph---The sysop is the final arbiter in such cases. It is only censorship when the government intervenes to prevent speech. <[Ralph] ST.REPORT> I agree, in effect I censored myself to avoid more controversy, I was looking for your opinion and I thank you for your time. <BOB.PUFF> Yes I was wondering if you could comment on self-maintaining BBSs that automatically validate uploaded files. Is this illegal in itself, or could the sysop be in trouble if a copyrighted file is up for a bit of time till he realizes it? <JON.WALLACE> Bob, there are no precise rules in this area yet. My best guess is that the sysop has an obligation to exercise due care. For that reason I would try and set things up so that a pirated file would be discovered in under a couple of days. Therefore, the idea of a self-validating BBS makes me nervous. <BOB.PUFF> I see. right - but its that couple of days that the file might be up. ok something to think about. thanks. <WP.DAVE> Jon, do you consider your SYSLAW book to apply much to information service sysops, or is it 95% for the private BBS operator? <JON.WALLACE> The book was written for the BBS sysop, but much of what's in it applies equally to service sysops...e.g., the discussion of copyright, libel, etc. <DAVESMALL> Hi again. As I understand it, the libel law says (basically) that to commit libel, you have to say something false, know it's false, and do it with malice intended. First, am I right? (*grin*) Second, does that apply different to public figures vs. mere mortals? <JON.WALLACE> Dave, the rules you stated are correct for a media defendant (newspaper, etc.) libelling a public figure. If the "libeller" is a private citizen, the states are free to hold you to a mere negligence standard. <DAVESMALL> Can you expand on "negligence"? <JON.WALLACE> Yes a careless false statement, e.g. something you didn't bother to verify. <CRAIG.S.THOM> Along the lines of the self-validating files...what if users upload copyrighted text into the message bases? Song lyrics, documentation, that type of thing? Messages are never held for validation. <JON.WAL...
kopia23