On 02/02/2010, Monty Montgomery <xiphmont@xxxxxxxxx> 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... _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
