 |
LavaNet's Policy on Usenet Newsgroup Access and Content
Usenet is composed of many thousands
of newsgroups, with more being added every day. To deliver quality
access to Usenet, LavaNet subscribes to an outsourced Usenet service
called "SuperNews". A limited number of ports are available for the
news service, which is included with LavaNet access accounts. Please
note that there may be times where all ports are in use and may require
re-attempts to connect. LavaNet may increase or decrease the number
of available ports from time to time, change news providers or discontinue
Usenet news service at our sole discretion and without notice.
Responsibilities come with providing newsgroups to our subscribers.
Certain newsgroups carry content which is unethical or illegal. To
resolve this, we came up with a policy which defines the basis on
which we might choose to have our provider block a newsgroup. It is
a synthesis of two principles LavaNet holds dear: freedom of speech,
and a sense of ethics about what information we make available.
Our policy:
We will instruct our provider to block the content of Usenet groups
where it is clear and unmistakable (for instance from the title of
the group) that the content for which the group was created is in
itself illegal to possess or distribute. Since there aren't too many
forms of information which are illegal in the US, that boils down
to:
- Child pornography - this is material
that it is simply illegal to create or possess. Examples of groups
that fit this description:
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.child
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.child.female
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.child.male
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.children
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.lolita
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.lolita.fucking
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.lolita.misc
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.pre-teen
alt.sex.pre-teens
...and so on.
- Copyrighted material - e.g. software
which is posted on the "warez" groups in violation of copyright.
It's a federal crime to pirate software, and LavaNet feels that
in an information society it is important to respect intellectual
property rights. Examples of groups that fit this description:
alt.binaries.warez.amiga
alt.binaries.warez.atari-st
alt.binaries.warez.cbm alt.binaries.warez.consoles
alt.binaries.warez.ibm-pc alt.binaries.warez.mac alt.binaries.warez.sega-genesis
alt.binaries.warez.snes alt.cracks alt.warez.amiga alt.warez.atari
alt.warez.atari-st
alt.warez.consoles
alt.warez.ibm-pc
...and so on.
Note that our policy doesn't affect many other controversial groups, for
instance:
- alt.binaries.pictures.erotica - while some of the articles here
may be scans of copyrighted material, there are also many articles
that are not. Therefore the group stays.
- alt.drugs - while possession of some drugs is illegal in the
USA, talking about them is protected free speech.
- alt.binaries.warez.ibm-pc.d - this is a discussion group regarding
illegally copied software. Once again, discussing illegal things
is not itself illegal.
We don't police the newsfeed very systematically, for one thing
because we don't have time, but these are the principles we go by.
If we notice a group, or if someone tells us of a group which clearly
violates our standard by having either inherently illegal content
or routine and purposeful copyright violations, we'll instruct our
feed provider to block the group.
The law is pretty unclear about standards and precedents for these
questions at present. Does dropping any newsgroup for any reason constitute
censorship, and set us up in the position of being editor or publisher
and having responsibility for everything else? It might be construed
that way, based on court cases involving Compuserve and Prodigy. On
the other hand, we don't think we could argue that we are thereby
freed of responsibility if we did nothing to block access to groups
devoted to illegal content.
We suggest the "newsstand" analogy: We are not going to stock "kiddie
porn" magazines in our display, but that does not mean we create or
have responsibility for all the contents of the other magazines we
sell. With Usenet being the way it is, and new groups being created
constantly, we have to admit we don't always know what's there. (Rather
as if we're constantly being shipped new boxes of magazines by distributors,
and haven't always gotten around to seeing what's in those boxes.)
If we know a group offers something actually illegal to possess, we'll
instruct our provider to block it. That seems like the level of responsibility
we must take. The decision on the Netcom case by a federal judge in
California seems to support our viewpoint: he held that Netcom could
be liable for contributing to copyright infringement by a subscriber,
because it was informed of the infringement and failed to take action
to prevent it.
As with everything at LavaNet, we are open about our policies so that
there will be no misunderstandings. We are also eager to hear the
reactions of our users and the Usenet community in general. You may
want to discuss this in the lava.general newsgroup, or you can email
us at usenet-policy@lava.net.
|
|