2 Feb
2010
2 Feb
'10
9:26 a.m.
On 02/02/2010, Monty Montgomery <xiphmont(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Removign the post from this specific list archive does
not change one
iota any actionable breach of contract that has already occurred.
But it might be enough to satisfy Pace's lawyers, which might mean
that Muse get to keep playing rather than being suffocated by lawyers'
fees defending a worthless suit.
Also, censoring the list instantly makes the
maintainers of the list
themselves legally actionable for content on the list, and does so to
no useful effect.
Good point, in two directions. Firstly, LAU isn't covered by Muse
Research's NDA, so it'd be safe here; there's not much Pace's lawyers
could do. Secondly, though, if someone were to write something
libellous, the group would be co-liable, having ditched its common
carrier status.
...In the US, anyway. In the UK, Godfrey v Demon Internet eliminated
the concept in 2001, so LAU is *already* liable there for libellous
statements. Combine that with a judge (J Eady) who's happy to accept
jurisdiction on the most tenuous grounds possible, and a set of
international agreements which render UK judgements binding on the
world stage - and be afraid...