the gray line

[Karsten Wade]

Please allow me to pull this discussion into a separate thread, as I'm
losing the details in the "Fedora Guide" thread.

Trying to understand what the current position is on linking to third-
party sites that -may- link to other sites that may have infringing
content.  In other words, fedorafaq.org, fedoraforum.org, etc.

My current understanding is:

* We -can- send people to those sites, as general answer sites
* We -cannot- send people to those sites to "get your MP3s"
* This is because we are not able to control the content of any website,
from google.com to fedorafaq.org.  This is different from knowing that
the target URL has specific packages that circumvent stuff.

Is that clear as mud?

thx - Karsten
-- 
Karsten Wade, RHCE * Sr. Tech Writer * http://people.redhat.com/kwade/
gpg fingerprint:  2680 DBFD D968 3141 0115    5F1B D992 0E06 AD0E 0C41   
                       Red Hat SELinux Guide
http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/enterprise/RHEL-4-Manual/selinux-guide/

[Erik Hemdal]

>  -----Original Message-----
>  From: fedora-marketing-list-bounces(a)redhat.com 
>  [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf 
>  Of Karsten Wade
>  Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2005 12:05 PM
>  To: fedora-marketing-list(a)redhat.com
>  Subject: the gray line
>  
>  Please allow me to pull this discussion into a separate 
>  thread, as I'm losing the details in the "Fedora Guide" thread.
>  
>  Trying to understand what the current position is on linking 
>  to third- party sites that -may- link to other sites that may 
>  have infringing content.  In other words, fedorafaq.org, 
>  fedoraforum.org, etc.
>  
>  My current understanding is:
>  
>  * We -can- send people to those sites, as general answer sites
>  * We -cannot- send people to those sites to "get your MP3s"
>  * This is because we are not able to control the content of 
>  any website, from google.com to fedorafaq.org.  This is 
>  different from knowing that the target URL has specific 
>  packages that circumvent stuff.
>  
>  Is that clear as mud?
>  
>  thx - Karsten 
> From what I have read, the issue is one of inducement of infringement,
brought to the fore by the US Supreme Court's decision in June against
Grokster.

The classic in this area of IP law was the "Betamax" decision which came
down on Sony's side.  In that case, the  Court allowed Betamax video
recorders to be sold because Sony made the case for a video recorder to be a
"time-shifting" device.  Recording a TV show so you can watch it later was
not considered to be an infringing use.  Sony did not go out of its way to
show users how to steal movies using Beta video tapes.  They didn't offer a
service that made illegal movies available to users.  They only made a
machine that could record video.  Sony wasn't at fault for infringement
simply because a user could use a VCR to steal movies.

In the Grokster case, the key difference is that Grokster appeared to
encourage its users to use their software to obtain illegal copies of music
files.  They did not charge any fees, and only earned revenue from ads
visible to users.  So the case was made that Grokster depended on illegal
file sharing for its business model.  The more illegal activity, the more
people used Grokster (giving it advertising revenue).  

So this new decision says that you can be liable for infringement if you
encourage others to infringe.  According to the Grokster decision, that
company went too far.  But there's no definition of exactly how much
encouragement is too much.  So companies that make technology are properly
cautious right now.

Karsten, are their attorneys at Red Hat who can offer guidelines about what
the Fedora Project can do, how much can be done to encourage users, and how
it should be explained?  It's really a legal topic. 

Erik

[Greg DeKoenigsberg]

On Sun, 24 Jul 2005, Erik Hemdal wrote:

>  Karsten, are their attorneys at Red Hat who can offer guidelines
> about what
>  the Fedora Project can do, how much can be done to encourage users, and how
>  it should be explained?  It's really a legal topic.  
Red Hat counsel has already weighed in on this topic, and our position is
pretty much exactly as Karsten has communicated it.

In individual cases, I'm your front-end.  And I won't always answer 
promptly, so common sense goes a long way here.  :)

When in doubt: be careful.

--g

_____________________  ____________________________________________
  Greg DeKoenigsberg ] [ the future masters of technology will have
 Community Relations ] [ to be lighthearted and intelligent.  the
             Red Hat ] [ machine easily masters the grim and the 
                     ] [ dumb.  --mcluhan

[Karsten Wade]

On Sun, 2005-07-24 at 13:09 -0400, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote:
>  On Sun, 24 Jul 2005, Erik Hemdal wrote:
>  
>  > Karsten, are their attorneys at Red Hat who can offer guidelines about what
>  > the Fedora Project can do, how much can be done to encourage users, and how
>  > it should be explained?  It's really a legal topic. 
>  
>  Red Hat counsel has already weighed in on this topic, and our position is
>  pretty much exactly as Karsten has communicated it. 
Thanks, this is what I wanted confirmed.  The ForbiddenItems wiki page
is now a pretty fair canonical reference, including good examples of
legally-safe and unambiguous language.

- Karsten
-- 
Karsten Wade, RHCE * Sr. Tech Writer * http://people.redhat.com/kwade/
gpg fingerprint:  2680 DBFD D968 3141 0115    5F1B D992 0E06 AD0E 0C41   
                       Red Hat SELinux Guide
http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/enterprise/RHEL-4-Manual/selinux-guide/