(OT) Re: Mail servers changes (INFO)

Eric Smith wrote: We and most other ISPs advance the argument that we are not responsible for the content which passes through our infrastructure, arguing that we are the bit-shipping analog to telcos -- and hence should have the same indemnification from acts of our subscribers which might be criminally or civilly actionable. Of course we add explicit indemnification language to our subscription agreements as well. Is there a legislative CC mandate? No. Has this argument been used successfully in court? According to counsel, yes. Would the argument be as effective if we demonstrate the ability to filter objectionable material on behalf of our subscribers but without their explicit direction or consent? Probably not, because the telcos don't do so. I'm not sure that I completely subscribe to that position, but we pay these people for their legal opinions because they're supposed to know more about telecommunications law than we do. -- Chris Kennedy chris(a)mainecoon.com http://www.mainecoon.com PGP fingerprint: 4E99 10B6 7253 B048 6685 6CBC 55E1 20A3 108D AB97