The Legal Bit

[+kewfriend]

Recent discussions have brought up the role of 'Reviewers' and the fact that they are not 'Approvers'. The explanation for the difference in terminology has been the issue of implied legal responsibility.

 

In a different (but related) IT arena I have had to unpick this one.

 

The bad news for UK Reviewers is that in UK law you are judged not by what you call something but by what actually happens. (This will justify their interventions in the Royal Parks affair). If your actions can be deemed to have encouraged or enabled illegal actions then elements of the criminal law may apply - though I'd be hard pressed to see the DPP allowing a prosecution. If your considered or reckless actions can be deemed to have encouraged or enabled a situation whereby a third party (land owner etc) suffers a financial loss then you can be sued.

 

Strangely - (as I have discovered wrt to my own 'other issue') - if you do nothing but just publish, no moderation, then your liabilities only kick in if you fail to respond to a subsequent reasonable request from the aggrieved to immediately correct, amend or desist . This is the 'ISP-censorship' / 'blog' issue.

 

If you make suggestions as to appropriateness of what is published but do not actually 'moderate' then again you are 'in the clear' until otherwise advised.

 

Strangely were the GC Review/Approve process to take part wholly in the US on US servers by US reviewers you could publish details about any caches in the UK anywhere.

 

US law is different, particularly wrt 'publishing'. The 'publishing' defence tends to take precedence over any other litigious processes. France is the other way round - as sTeamTraen will know.

[+keehotee]

So if I were to write a book on, say, robbing banks, and my publisher went ahead and published without offering me any advice - or removing any sections that would actually enable somebody to rob a bank - they'd be in the clear if somebody did use portions of the book to rob a bank.

But on the other hand - if they advised me that I ought to remove certain sections because they'd give a third party enough information to rob a bank - but a third party went ahead and robbed a bank anyway, using other information from the book - they could be held liable???

[+sTeamTraen]

France is the other way round - as sTeamTraen will know.

Erm... no. I have not the slightest idea.

[+kewfriend]

So if I were to write a book on, say, robbing banks, and my publisher went ahead and published without offering me any advice - or removing any sections that would actually enable somebody to rob a bank - they'd be in the clear if somebody did use portions of the book to rob a bank. But on the other hand - if they advised me that I ought to remove certain sections because they'd give a third party enough information to rob a bank - but a third party went ahead and robbed a bank anyway, using other information from the book - they could be held liable???

Your book publisher does not have common carrier status or anything near it, but strangely enough in essence you have got the grist - which is why from time to time publishers recall books for 'pulping'. As for any criminal offence very very very unlikely unless your intent was to enable robbery with violence.

[+CanUK_TeamFitz]

So if I were to write a book on, say, robbing banks, and my publisher went ahead and published without offering me any advice - or removing any sections that would actually enable somebody to rob a bank - they'd be in the clear if somebody did use portions of the book to rob a bank. But on the other hand - if they advised me that I ought to remove certain sections because they'd give a third party enough information to rob a bank - but a third party went ahead and robbed a bank anyway, using other information from the book - they could be held liable???

Your book publisher does not have common carrier status or anything near it, but strangely enough in essence you have got the grist - which is why from time to time publishers recall books for 'pulping'. As for any criminal offence very very very unlikely unless your intent was to enable robbery with violence.

 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/If-I-Did-Confessio...7266&sr=8-1

 

 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/How-Commit-Murder-...7663&sr=1-5

 

[+PSHAX]

So if I were to write a book on, say, robbing banks, and my publisher went ahead and published without offering me any advice - or removing any sections that would actually enable somebody to rob a bank - they'd be in the clear if somebody did use portions of the book to rob a bank. But on the other hand - if they advised me that I ought to remove certain sections because they'd give a third party enough information to rob a bank - but a third party went ahead and robbed a bank anyway, using other information from the book - they could be held liable???

Your book publisher does not have common carrier status or anything near it, but strangely enough in essence you have got the grist - which is why from time to time publishers recall books for 'pulping'. As for any criminal offence very very very unlikely unless your intent was to enable robbery with violence.

 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/If-I-Did-Confessio...7266&sr=8-1

 

 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/How-Commit-Murder-...7663&sr=1-5

 

 

I did a search a while back at Amazon.. Some real shockers by Uncle Fester... Just where does true liability lie?

Edited November 25, 2009 by PSHAX