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

[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.

Host your site in Sealand.

[Cain Novocaine]

laws, schmaws!
HavenCo

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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