[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
HYPERLINK-Probleme nicht nur in Berlin ...
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: HYPERLINK-Probleme nicht nur in Berlin ...
- From: Horns@t-online.de (Axel H. Horns)
- Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 08:29:36 +0100
- Comment: This message comes from the debate mailing list.
- Comments: Authenticated sender is <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Organization: Private Site
- Priority: normal
- Sender: email@example.com
Das fand ich heute in RISKS-Forum Digest: Erstaunlich, wie fit
der Nottinghamshire County's barrister in Sachen Gebrauch des WWW und
von e-Mail ist ...
firstname.lastname@example.org (RISKS List Owner) wrote:
------------------------------ QUOTE ------------------------------
>RISKS-LIST: Risks-Forum Digest Thursday 12 June 1997 Volume 19 :
> FORUM ON RISKS TO THE PUBLIC IN COMPUTERS AND RELATED SYSTEMS
> (comp.risks) ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy, Peter
> G. Neumann, moderator
>***** See last item for further information, disclaimers, caveats,
>***** ANNUAL SUMMER SLOWDOWN BEGINS HERE Friday the 13th Jun at
>13:13. ***** *********** Yes, I know, it's winter in AU, NZ, ZA,
>Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 13:47:31 -0700
>From: Jeremy Freeman <email@example.com>
>Subject: Censorship from half way around the world
>Recently, I was checking out the latest news on Hotwired. I came
>across a story of how a controversial, previously unpublished report
>called the JET Report found its way on to the Internet. The report
>detailed how many child abuse cases that occurred in Britain's
>Nottinghamshire County some time ago were incorrectly identified as
>'satanic child abuse'. For some reason the Nottinghamshire County
>Council did not want this report in the open, so they threatened the
>British reporter who posted the report to the Internet with court
>action. Not only did they threaten to sue him if he did not
> remove the report, they threatened to sue if he did not remove the
>to mirror sites of the report around the world.
>This bothered me. I believe that any information concerning the
>public should be made available for the public to read. Further, I
>despise the fact that they made the reporter take down Links to
>mirror sites. A link is not infringement of copyright. They used big
>government intimidation and scare tactics to force the burial of the
>So in protest, I mirrored the JET Report on my server and registered
>the page with the search engines.
>Not long after, I received an e-mail from Nottinghamshire County's
>barrister instructing me to remove the "JET Report" or face legal
>action on the grounds I was infringing on their copyright. Fearing a
>long drawn out case in British court, I removed the report and in its
>place put a hyperlink to another mirror site in the United States.
>About 5 hours later I received another e-mail explaining to me that a
>hyperlink to a mirror site was in-effect the same thing as putting
>the report on my page. The e-mail went on to say that if I did not
>remove the link, court action would commence without further notice.
>Now, my page that formerly contained the JET Report contains a
>detailed report of the events surrounding this incident, but not the
>report or any links to it.
>The RISKs are: Assuming one is immune from prosecution even though
>they reside in another country and that a judge will understand that
>providing a link to another site is not the same as hosting it.
>The site detailing these events is:
>Jeremy Freeman, Penticton, BC, Canada