On Handling Web Site Legalities?

sterno asks: "I'm currently running a Web site that deals with issues of privacy, freedom, etc. Up until now the site has been built almost entirely out of articles that I have personally written. I've long considered adding the ability for people to submit articles but I'm concerned about the potential legal issues involved (copyright, etc). What I'd like to know is what people who run Web sites as hobbies have done about the potential legal issues of their sites?" If you run a Web site as a hobby, this question has probably run through your mind in some form or another. What legal contingency plans do most of you have in place which would prove useful to a Web site without much in the way of resources?

"One of the problems with building Web sites it seems is that they are frought with potential legal morasses. Somebody could be offended by your Web site and sue to have it taken down. Somebody may post proprietary information to your Web site, leading to somebody else filing a suit against you. We've seen countless reports of this happening, and I'm sure there are many situations that don't make it to the press happening every day.

If you are part of a large corporation who can afford lawyers this is one thing, but for hobbyists the same legal issues can arise but we may not possess the knowledge and resources to fend them off. So, I'm curious to know what people have done with their Web sites to reduce their risks. Do you pay a lawyer a few bucks to write a usage policy? Do you copy a policy from somewhere else? If you have gotten into some legal hot water, what did you do about it?"

Comments

Of copywritten material

[Ruzty]

On a public posting system I run we must police content regularly. Our users have a penchant for posting song lyrics in full, for example.

Make a best effort along with a public notice that content is policed and you should be in good shape.
Avoid fighting the battles and comply with requests to have content removed. It may not be a popular stance but it CYA.
-Rusty

Re:Of copywritten material

[heikkile]

IANAL, nor American, but I seem to recall it to be the other way around. If you start policing, they may hold you responsible of everything on the board, whereas if you claim it all is the posters responsibility, you are more like a common carrier, and the offended party will have to sue the poster, not the site. Remember Microsoft vs. Slashdot earlier this year?

Still, talking to a lawyer might a good idea

Re:Of copywritten material

[rnturn]

``IANAL, nor American...''

IANAL either, but am an American who hopes that some common sense can be applied to questions like this (what a dreamer I am, eh?).

``If you start policing, they may hold you responsible of everything on the board, whereas if you claim it all is the posters responsibility, you are more like a common carrier, and the offended party will have to sue the poster, not the site.''

This is good point (and wasn't it one of the major points that the big ISPs raised against the deservedly ill-fated Internet Decency Act?). Why not prominently display a disclaimer and a graphic that indicates that such-and-such article is a visitor-submitted one? Also, a policy whereby all submittors agree to have such a header attached to their article would, I believe, keep you out of hot water. (But see above...) You might have to take things down on occasion but at least your submittors would know that they can't plagiarize or violate copyright and get away with.

``Still, talking to a lawyer might a good idea''

Yah, sort of like a prostate exam: A good idea but not necessarily enjoyable.

--

Re:Of copywritten material

[muldrake]

Specifically policing content is a terrible idea. Further, you don't even have to do that to get immunity from copyright suits.

You need to have a copyright page, and that page needs to have a DMCA agent, which can be you, if you have a clue and don't want to pay a designated legal agent by the hour to wade through kook mail. This should include your name, address for service of legal papers, telephone and/or fax number, email address, PGP key and any other means of contacting you.

The full details of this are available at Bitlaw and the statute is 17 USC 512.

(2)
Designated agent. The limitations on liability established in this subsection apply to a service provider only if the service provider has designated an agent to receive notifications of claimed infringement described in paragraph (3), by making available through its service, including on its website in a location accessible to the public, and by providing to the Copyright Office, substantially the following information:

(A)
the name, address, phone number, and electronic mail address of the agent.

(B)
other contact information which the Register of Copyrights may deem appropriate. The Register of Copyrights shall maintain a current directory of agents available to the public for inspection, including through the Internet, in both electronic and hard copy formats, and may require payment of a fee by service providers to cover the costs of maintaining the directory.

Now here's the bitch. Any complaint, no matter how ill-founded, must result in the removal of the disputed material, so long as it fully complies with the proper format for a DMCA notification, that is:

(3)
Elements of notification.

(A)
To be effective under this subsection, a notification of claimed infringement must be a written communication provided to the designated agent of a service provider that includes substantially the following:

(i)
A physical or electronic signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

(ii)
Identification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed, or, if multiple copyrighted works at a single online site are covered by a single notification, a representative list of such works at that site.

(iii)
Identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity and that is to be removed or access to which is to be disabled, and information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to locate the material.

(iv)
Information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to contact the complaining party, such as an address, telephone number, and, if available, an electronic mail address at which the complaining party may be contacted.

(v)
A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.

(vi)
A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

However, if the original poster of the material sends a counternotification, basically adhering to the same conventions, you can put the material right back up and then the complaining party has to sue the actual poster of the information or shut the fuck up.

Actually, they can conceivably just keep sending further complaints about the same material and forcing this tango to occur over and over again; it's not yet determined whether or not they can get away with it.

In *either* case, though, they can't sue *YOU*. At all. And this does NOT require you to police anything, only to act when given ACTUAL and CONSTRUCTIVE notice adhering to a specific format.

There is, by the way, no legal requirement that you actually have a DMCA Agent or comply with cease-and-desist orders you think are BS. The only problem with this is that you can then actually be sued and forced to defend yourself. DMCA also does not negate any legal defenses such as "Fair Use" that may exist under prior law, whether or not you choose to have an agent. It just immunizes you as a service provider from the inevitable kook suits that occur when you give free rein to Joe Nutbag to post to your website anonymously or otherwise.

Re:Of copywritten material

[muldrake]

And this does NOT require you to police anything, only to act when given ACTUAL and CONSTRUCTIVE notice

Slight but important correction. Actual OR constructive notice, and possibly only actual notice.

Europeans can tell you.

[nharmon]

Legal insurance is an option. You can get a lot of good benefits for a low price. There are a few companies in America who offer it.

Law is odd

[eldurbarn]

Lawyers are a funny lot. If you try to comply with the spirit of the law and police your postings, you've got to get it right each and every time or they'll hang you for your first mistake. If you say you won't police the postings, then you are not generally held liable, but your posters are.

IANAL, but my opinion is to let anything go, make your posters know that they should not post copyright materials, and when a copyright holder gets in touch with you about a posting, and can prove that they hold the rights, and they request that it be removed, then comply.

Host your site in Sealand.

[Cain Novocaine]

laws, schmaws!
HavenCo

Look at Slashdot for a model...

[stienman]

WWSD - What Would Slashdot Do?

Slashdot appeared to stand up when certian Microsoft documents and information on breaking past EULA's were posted here. What did they do? I don't think they took them down...

Then, of course, is the time when Slashdot allowed a certian author to quote Slashdot postings in his book (subsequently the book was not published due to the uproar, I believe).

There are a few other times when Slashdot, as a public forum, had information posted by users which other corporations were not happy about. In most cases, you can cite, as Slashdot has done in the past, that you are a public forum, and are not responsible for user postings.

Of course, the bottom line is, GAFL! (Get A Lawyer (derived from RTFM)). Comments from a bunch on people familiar with internet law will not replace an attorney's knowledge of both meatspace and internet law.

-Adam

Gee, we bring good things to life!

Re:Look at Slashdot for a model...

[barzok]

Slashdot was only able to stand up to MS (and others) because they have lawyers courtesy of Andover. A hobbyist or "little guy" wouldn't stand a chance.

What country are you in?

[bluGill]

If you are not in the US I have no clue what your local laws are. If you are in the US, IANAL, but I have a clue anyway.

So assuming you are in the US, don't worry abouyt being sued for you views, despite DeCSS, most juries in the US are unwilling to convinct anyone for views they disagree with. Make sure you counter sue for legal fees if anyone trys.

Re:What country are you in?

[muldrake]

2600 themselves had the DeCSS code on their site, so they were responsible. I am an ISP. If one of my users posts the DeCSS code on their home page, I am not responsible nor liable. A Cease and Desist letter from MPAA would not be cause of concern to me. But it would be of concern to the user.

This is dangerous ignorance.

Tell it to Netcom.

lalachu

[Lord Omlette]

Doesn't the W3C have that PICS standard thingee? You could register with their website and mod your rating up to prevent little kids from going there. Any irate parents would have the blame solely placed on themselves.

One of my favorite hentai webcomics uses a cookie on the disclaimer page to make sure you've gone through the front at least once. If you're looking at a page and that cookie isn't there, make sure the very top of the page has a warning that you haven't read the disclaimer and should read that before proceeding.

Privacy: rule # 1: Don't be a dick. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" may make non-christians sick, but it's a pretty good way to make decisions. Try it, you might like it. rule # 2: All you need for truste certification (i think) is to disclose your privacy policy and every single way in which you collect user information and how you use it.

Copyright: put your own copyright on every single page you've written. Reference reference reference If you've taken something from someone else, document it, and even better, get permission. If you don't know who said something, but it's not yours, say so and hope the other party comes forward. If you let someone else post on your website, remember to document in plain view that these other people's views are their own and may not necessarily reflect your own. Plan ahead: if you think something will be abused, it will be. If you think it won't be abused, it will be. Welcome to the internet.

If you're going to post something to the net and you think you could get in legal trouble, then fuck you, stop whining, go talk to a lawyer. Lesser of three evils: spend money on a lawyer, go to jail, don't publish. Well?! CHOOSE DAMMIT! If you don't, someone else will.

Change your content to publish only trivial things that involve linux or sensationalized headlines, then get bought out by VA Linux. Then you won't have to worry about money. whee
--
Peace,
Lord Omlette
ICQ# 77863057

Re:lalachu

[Silas]

If you're going to post something to the net and you think you could get in legal trouble, then fuck you, stop whining, go talk to a lawyer. Lesser of three evils: spend money on a lawyer, go to jail, don't publish. Well?! CHOOSE DAMMIT! If you don't, someone else will.

To me, this translates to "if you want to exercise your right to free speech, you have to be prepared to spend money to defend that right." I disagree that this should ever be the case, and think the notion that there needs to be any sort of safety net in place beyond the Bill of Rights (and that the saftey net should cost the individual citizen money on a per incident basis) is appalling.

If you're going to bother at all with the whole "right to free speech" rigamarole, you have to be prepared to go all the way.

Re:lalachu

[Bongo]

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" may make non-christians sick, but it's a pretty good way to make decisions.

BAHA'I
"Blessed are those who prefer others before themselves."
-- Baha'u'llah, Tablets of Baha'u'llah, 71

BUDDHISM
"Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful."
-- Udana-Varga, 5:18

CHRISTIANITY
"Always treat others as you would like them to treat you."
-- Jesus, Matthew 7:12

CONFUCIANISM
"Do not unto others what you would not have them do unto you."
-- Analects 15:23

HINDUISM
"This is the sum of all duty: do not do to others what would cause pain if done to you."
-- Mahabharata 5:1517

ISLAM
"No one of you is a believer until you desire for another that which you desire for yourself"
-- Sunnah

JAINISM
"In happiness and suffering, in joy and grief, regard all creatures as you would regard your own self."
-- Lord Mahavir 24th Tirthankara

JUDAISM
"What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor, That is the entire Torah; all the rest is commentary."
-- Talmud, Shabbat 31a

NATIVE AMERICAN
"Respect for all life is the foundation"
-- The Great Law of Peace

SIKHISM
"Be not estranged from another for God dwells in every heart."
-- Sri Guru Granth Sahib

ZOROASTRIANISM
"Human nature is good only when it does not do unto another whatever is no good for its own self."
-- Dadistan-i-Dinik, 94:5

WICCAN
"Everything you do, whether positive or negative, is returned to you threefold."
-- The Threefold Law

Re:lalachu

[Silas]

I agree that the Bill of Rights is not a self-enforcing document (at least not in the less-than-ideal world that exists at present). But I think that the person to whom I was responding originally was implying that enforcement of any kind will always require money, and that the private citizen should not attempt to exercise their right to free speech unless they were prepared to spend that money. The right to free speech is (or should be) unconditional, at least in the sense that there should be no pre-requisitve of wealth in order to enjoy its privileges.

I do concede that questions of legal free speech require a complex process to resolve them, and that the process can be expensive. But just as alleged criminals are theoretically presumed innocent until proven guilty, potential violators of free speech law who are acting in good conscience (i.e. what they're saying isn't, to them, clearly illegal) should have an opportunity to make their statements independent of whether or not they have the finacial backing to survive the legal process.

Re:lalachu

[muldrake]

According to Amway, P&G was funding Schwartz's site, which Schwartz denies. Due to the legal battle, Schwartz finally took his site down, although it is still mirrored heavily around the world. Despite the fact that Amway and their lawyers were never able to answer Schwartz's challenge to point out even one single incorrect statement on his site, he was effectively silenced by Amway's continued litigation. They didn't need to win in court.

Scamway is a litigious cult on the level of $cientology. Like all scams, they can't survive when the truth about their scam is freely available. However, they know that it's very easy for a large corporation to outspend a single individual and litigate them to utter financial destruction regardless of the merits of the case.

Welcome to Amerika. How much freedom can you afford?

Authenticate Users With a Contract

[SlipJig]

I run a web site where users can submit music, reviews, and other stuff (Sessioneer); some of the music posted is probably copyrighted (I don't monitor it very effectively). I tried to address these issues by issuing a contract upon registration, which the user implicitly agrees to by using the site.

I "borrowed" the legal text from another site and modified the text to suit my needs. I'm not a lawyer, but I think it gets the point across. Also, the nature of the material on the site is such that copyrights are rarely enforced (it's Irish traditional dance music).... so far I haven't had a problem, but I'm probably still exposed to some degree.

First things first

[GMontag]

Not a stinking thing that anybody posts to a website SHOULD be used as grounds to go after the operator. You are an ISP of sorts. You never offered police or babysitting services (even if your website is cop or baby related).

Yes, this gets to the roots of the problem with these stupid legal nitwits that want to sue everybody in sight because they believe that they now own the ASCII set (or whatever) through edict of a clueless government agency, or they believe that words constitute "assault", other assorted nonsense.

Look at it from a privacy issue. You are providing words but you have no desire to be identified for your hard work.

If you obscure ownership of the site, then it is more difficult for the errant, baseless, lawyerspeak mail to get to you. Register the site through e-mail, using a fake name/address and mail in a money order. If you are running a server at home, then you will blow any obfuscation. If you are using someone else's server and renting space on it, then you can make this work easier.

Unless you become party to high-profile criminal charges by some grandstanding fed, then you have little risk of being bothered in person either.
However, obscuring your location by administering your server remotely (POTS line, modem, laptop) and never giving out your real name will go a long way, even if some "wanna be famous" judge/lawyer team wants to go after you.

They might try to e-mail you, but if you never give out your address (and do NOT run your site from home or a single location that you frequent), then they can not serve you with any papers/warrants or even arrest you.

However, they may go after your provider. In that case, Sealand is probably the safest from that lawyer hack. There may be others, check around and stay anonymous.

Visit DC2600

How big of a deal?

[Alioth]

How big is your website? How many visitors? A hundred a day? Thousands? Slashdot sized traffic?

I have a couple of websites myself which I do just for my enjoyment (it's what I do instead of watching TV), including one with a web-board where anyone can post. However, since my traffic is only about 60-100 visitors per day, I think the risk of lawyer attacks is too miniscule to justify the expense of seeking legal advice or getting insurance. (Also, my sites aren't about anything controversial anyway, so that lessens the exposure so it's so tiny it's lost in the noise. They are just something I do for fun).

Think hard about your risk exposure - is it great, or is it small? If you are a hobbyist, your risk is probably pretty tiny, particularly if you're not winning awards for "Most Visited Site", so it might be worth just putting on some boilerplate (like Slashdot has), and not worrying about it disproportionately.

use the DMCA

[aozilla]

1. incorporate
2. register your company name and address as an ISP under the DMCA
3. do nothing unless you receive a sworn statement under penalty of perjury that the person is infringing copyright law.
4. if you get that, take the site down and/or contact a lawyer if you want to fight it

DMCA

[aozilla]

Under the conditions of the DMCA, if an Internet Service Provider (ISP) receives complaints of a copyright violation, the ISP is required to remove that user from its system. However, should that user believe that he or she has been wrongfully accused, the DMCA allows the submission of a legal counter-notification. The copyright holder then has ten days to take legal action against the individual user. If no legal action is initiated, the ISP must restore service to the user.

Re:And then they cannot contact anyone

[Anonymous Coward]

I do. All the time and without exception.

My Lawyer says..(2)

[cthlptlk]

...that I should be using Visual Basic rather Java. So why ask programmers for legal opinion?

P.S. No one needs a good case to sue you. Maybe they need a good case to win, but going to court can kill you, win or lose. I "won" my divorce case a few months ago and I'll be paying the legal fees for the next few years.

Re:The case with slashdot

[Life Blood]

That only works if the people doing the legal ordering actually don't have a leg to stand on or simply don't want to look bad by actually carrying through with their threat of litigation. Thats all a cease and desist order really is, a threat of litigation. This was the case with slashdot v. microsoft. Microsoft actually didn't have any legal protections on the code, it was a trade secret which worth almost nothing legally unless the person telling the secret it is violating a corporate confidentiality agreement.

If this wasn't the case, like if what was posted was legally protected and important then the situation would have been different. If someone posted the source to some large expensive copyrighted proprietary software for instance, slashdot would have had to go to court and most likely would have lost.

Its one thing to say that the content on the site is the property of the posters, it is another thing to treat it that way. Slashdot treats posts like they were the content of the community since you can't re-edit your post after it is made. IANAL, but as such it may be open to attack if someone does something way out of line.

Blind Luck and Stupidity Mainly...

[BadlandZ]

I've been running (so to say, with LOADS of downtime) a site for quite some time. current.nu has been up in some form or another since about June of 1998, and had no problems at all (yet, knock on wood). I think there are some key things that keep us from having legal problems, but we probably border on having some...

Honestly, Largo (Justin Stressman) has a Window Maker theme site that probably runs the biggest legal risk, because he will snake ANY cool image for a theme. I've discussed it with him, and he goes to some effort to reference and _credit_ the original source of the images. Although his work involves extensively modifying images, in most cases to the point where the original image is almost impossible to identify, he still credits the original source whenever possible. That, coupled with the fact that we will probably pull them at the request of the original artist, probably gets us by. It's good for the artist (acknowledgement), and good for him.

Any news, software, or other content on the sites is either 1) Just referenced, not locally copied, 2) Mirror of something that is clearly public domain, or 3) our own damn work. So, there shouldn't be any problems there.

But yea, it's a big concern. For the last year we (mostly me) have been going through some legal research about founding a "corporation" for the sake of distancing personal liability. And it's not cheap ($150 in paperwork to become a incorporated is just the beginning, it's really the time and money involved with "staying legal" that makes it tough). Makes the "hobby" not much fun. Also makes you think about trying to make some money off the thing, just to cover your costs, but that's even more work.

But, what it really depends on is your ultimate goal. You didn't really make that clear. If you are out to make a buck as a news portal selling ad space, you have a very tough road to go. Then you HAVE to make it right and legal, and cover all the bases. That means it will cost you money to get started. If your just doing something with no ads, that your doing for the joy of it, then just reference your sources, paraphrase, and link the original for content. For hobby sites, you just cross your fingers, hope and pray, and try to believe that if a big company takes you to court for "copyright violations" on your none profit hobby site, a jury will laugh them out of court, and see it for what it is, one guy with a web page vs. a multibillion dollar company.

If you think this is tough, you would love the discussions I had to have with a University sys admin about how Largo's stuff isn't porn, it's art, and it's not a serious threat to the universities bandwidth. Luckily, we pay our own bandwidth now and can do whatever the hell we want (and it shows in the slow speed of our site).

erf, hold up

[Lord Omlette]

no fair telling us you have a website without giving us a url to slashdot. ^_^
--
Peace,
Lord Omlette
ICQ# 77863057

What about parody articles?

[Remus Shepherd]

The original question is one that's been on my mind also, as I'm considering putting up a parody/fiction site. But I'm concerned about my legal exposure. My proposed site will have references (clearly labelled as fiction and satire, and posted by both me and my guests) to some 'in-joke' rumors about popular corporations (e.g: Microsoft is owned by aliens, Hormel's SPAM is made of ground human meat, the Teletubbies are mutated lab experiments, etc.)

Is a disclaimer, stating that all contents are fiction/parody/satire, enough to deflect legal threats to a parody website? Is there something else that can be done to protect me if I do create this site?

Re:What about parody articles?

[goliard]

Legal threats? In the US, sure. Satire is well protected by both the first amendment and lots of supreme court precident.

But the financial threat of being sued by an irate corp can't be removed. They can sue you without good reason. Even if they don't win, they can cost you so much in lawyers's fees you'll have to give up before you ever get your day in court.

However, there is a tact no one else seems to have taken. I might consider the following: Draft (or hire someone to draft for me) an extremely professional letter explaning...

1. We all know that parody is protected by the first amendment and there isn't a court in the country which would find for the plaintiff in such a case.
2. We all know that the would-be plaintiff has bag of money and hungry lawyers straining at their leashes, while their poor target could barely mount a legal defense.
3. However, it has come to the author's attention that the N.Y. Times, Washington Post, and CNN, among others, adore these "big corp sues poor schmuck because big corp has no sense of humor" stories. Indeed, if they were to pick up the story, quite literally hundreds of thousands more people would see the work of parody in question.
4. Therefore I have cc'd your head of Public Relations on this letter. I'm sure they'd be happy to explain to you quite what such a lawsuit could do to your brand.

And then I'd have it ready for any cease-and-desist letters which show up.
--------------------------------------------- -

GAFL?

[ZanshinWedge]

Get A Fscking Lawyer?! Have things come to that? Can't people setup their own websites without having to shell out a mound of cash to an overpriced lawyer? It would be sorry indeed if everyone needed a lawyer to look over even the simplest of websites.

Confiming Identity

[sterno]

I was thinking about a system for handling this, and I came up with the notion of a copyright complaint system. Essentially if a person feels that they are having their copyright violated, they can file to have the article removed. If the author is anonymous it will be removed automatically. If they are not anonymous, then the complaint would be forwarded to them and they would be given the ability to remove their own article. If they don't respond in a reasonable period of time (i.e. they gave a false e-mail address), the article would be removed automatically.

The big hole in this plan that I can see is that if the person has an anonymous e-mail account (i.e. there's no real way to associate their e-mail with a legal name), then they can just ignore the complainer. At that point the complainer might seek relief from me because they can't get it from the poster.

---

Re:Disclaimers

[rnturn]

Makes you wonder how much internet bandwidth is consumed by the transmission of legal disclaimers...

Isn't it sad that much of one's efforts go toward covering one's ass? I've worked at some places that every piddling little decision had to be documented and cc:'d to the right people. Just in case someone gets their undies in a bunch and goes looking for someone to hang. After a while you figure that only about half your day is spent doing actual productive work. And don't forget the new cover sheet on your TPS report...

``Brought to you by Team SPAM! where we believe: "Information in the noise!"''

That's essentially the idea behind spread spectrum communications right?

Cheers...
--

Lawyers sharpen your pencils!

[PopeAlien]

Whenever I start a small non-profit hobby site I like to assemble a huge legal team to pre-emptively sue those that I may recieve legal problems from.. I find that the hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal expenses make it worth my peace of mind..

Re:hobby site

[Roblimo]

As long as you're willing to pull any posts that EvilCo doesn't like, then the "safe harbor" provision of the DMCA protects you from any lawsuits.

Beyond that, there's a whole series of rules to follow -- or not. But if you don't follow them, you could *potentially* have to defend yourself in court against a civil claim. If EvilCo sues you and you don't show up, they'll get a default judgement against you and you can be screwed but good. Don't forget - EvilCo can collect damages "plus legal expenses," and even if they only get a $1 judgement against you, the legal fees could be thousands.

There are ways around a lot of these problems, but I am *not* going to discuss them in a public forum. As I think most of you know, I get to spend enough time dealing with DMCA and legal crap without looking for more of it.

- Robin

Re:lalachu ;)

[guran]

And of course:

SLASHDOT ZEALOTRY
"It is my godgiven right to do unto others what I would never let them do to me (cuz they're evil corporate droids and I'm a 1337 h4XX0r)"
-- http://64.28.67.48

Thanks for the summary though. I was going to post something similar, but I wouldn't have found so many examples.

Who and where?

[GMontag]

If you can't be found, I can guarantee that the first place they'll go is to your ISP. Your ISP will then promptly either disclose who you are or shut you down. This is not a useful solution. You simply can't be public and be hidden. Don't even try.

If the ISP does not know who you are how can they disclose it? It is a trivial exercise to keep that information from them and everybidy else, as long as you are willing to give up convenience. I *thought* that I stated that in my post, but the post is not in front of me and I probably did not state it very clearly.

"Shut you down" as in throwing you in jail and silencing you? See paragraph above. If they can't find you they can not silence you. You can ALWAYS get hosted at another place. The deciding factor being that, just as in real life, privacy on the 'net brings a cost of convenience. If you are willing to pay those costs (get hosted at a "privacy friendly" service, remote admin, etc.) then you keep operating under a different domain.

Visit DC2600