[10731] in Public-Access_Computer_Systems_Forum
FYI France: Libraries & info control: M.Melot's proposal p.1/2
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (PACS-L Moderator)
Thu Oct 17 20:09:37 1996
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 17:29:49 -0500 (CDT)
From: PACS-L Moderator <libpacs@UH.EDU>
To: Multiple recipients of list PACS-L <PACS-L@UHUPVM1.UH.EDU>
Reply-To: Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <PACS-L@UHUPVM1.UH.EDU>
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>From: Jack Kessler <kessler@well.com>
>Subject: FYI France: Libraries & info control: M.Melot's proposal p.1/2
>
>Two items appear here in this month's FYI France:
>
>1) FYI France Online Service, http://www.fyifrance.com update: 79 new
>entries since Sep 15, and a new Resource List -- and site licenses!
>
>2) The views of Michel Melot, newly appointed Conservateur Ge'ne'ral
>des Bibliothe`ques, on the debate raging in France over whether
>librarians and other "carriers" should be legally liable for Internet
>information which they "carry" -- Melot's proposal for fixing this --
>and a glimpse of the debate which has ensued as a result of his
>proposal. A fascinating glimpse into the inner workings of a freedom of
>information system very different from some.
>
>XXX
>
>
>1) FYI France Online Service, http://www.fyifrance.com update: 79 new
>entries since Sep 15, and a new Resource List -- and site licenses!
>
>Many thanks for the good response to last month's announcement of the
>new FYI France Online Service. A number of institutions say that they
>would like site licenses: so pricing for one year will be,
>
> One user password US$ 45 ($ 35 until January 1, 1997)
>
> One user password US$ 35 (for 10 users or more)
>
> Site license US$450 ($350 until January 1, 1997)
>
>Please advise, via email to kessler@well.sf.ca.us, if you would like a
>subscription or a site license.
>
>XXX
>
>
>2) "The ISOC-CODE Debate: The point of view of Michel Melot"
>
>by Michel Melot [tr. JK.]
>
>[Michel Melot is former head conservateur of the De'partement des
>Estampes of the Bibliothe`que Nationale, former head of the
>Bibliothe`que Publique d'Information at the Centre Pompidou, and former
>President of the Conseil Supe'rieur des Bibliothe`ques. He just has
>been named France's Conservateur Ge'ne'ral des Bibliothe`ques. JK.]
>
>
>I. The position of a librarian
>
>The proposals of the interministerial task force* on the development of
>the Internet seem to have been welcomed by the professionals who met at
>the Ho^tel de Matignon* on Monday 20 May.
>
>[*The joint task force was formed by the Ministers of Culture and of
>"la Poste, Te'le'communications et l'Espace". *Paris' Ho^tel de Matignon
>houses the national Conseil des Ministres. JK.]
>
>Librarians and documentalists today are considered responsible for the
>information that they put at the disposal of the public. A library open
>to the public would not, in other words, distribute information that
>would contravene the laws of France or the Constitution.
>
>With the Internet it obviously is impossible for them to examine and
>safeguard all of the accessible information. At the same time, they can
>be prosecuted for crimes (racism, pedophilia, etc.) committed in fact
>by those whom they assist in getting online.
>
>They are therefore in the same situation as "common carriers" -- they
>transmit information, but are not responsible for it -- but the law, as
>we know, does not make this distinction.
>
>My position supports, therefore, those who currently are being
>prosecuted.
>
>a) The responsibility has to be taken on. One cannot pretend to believe
>that a message can be transmitted without human participation (and
>therefore complicity).
>
>b) Since the law punishes first authors, and distributors only by
>default, it seems necessary that authors always be identified, so as to
>avoid any situation in which someone else might be prosecuted "by
>default".
>
>c) It is not a question of allowing the "censorship" of the Internet in
>some arbitrary fashion but, rather, of applying to electronic messages
>the laws already applicable to other media.
>
>d) Legally the frontier between what is allowed and what is forbidden
>corresponds to that between "private communication" and "public
>communication". It is true that this distinction becomes difficult with
>electronic tools. It seems nevertheless that "private" might describe
>everything which is accessible only to a recipient designated by the
>producer of the message (a postal address, a telephone number, an email
>mailbox), and "public" that which is accessible to unidentified
>correspondants.
>
>Even if this distinction is not relevant (as in the case of collective
>addresses provided by servers) it would be hypocritical to believe that
>the Internet can be seen simply as a medium of private communication,
>comparable to the telephone. The public or private character of
>communication no longer may be determined by the nature of the media
>used, nor by the nature of its services (discussion, news... ), but
>must be defined by the nature of the relationship between the
>correspondents.
>
>II. The creation of an "observatory"
>
>Since each distributor, or librarian, cannot supervise all of the
>information placed at the disposition of the public, the existence of
>an authority of reference, able to designate messages which are
>objectionable or presumed to be so to me seems necessary, as much from
>the point of view of the distributors as from that of the users who
>today have to resort to the courts to attack a service which they
>believe to be prejudiced against them.
>
>This authority would collect complaints and, after an official legal
>inquiry to verify their good faith, simply announce its findings about
>the services in question to the distributors. Each distributor, having
>been put on notice, then would have the freedom to continue or to
>suppress these services, a suppression which apparently is technically
>possible.
>
>This solution presents many advantages. It is said often that it is
>necessary to defer to international standards. Apart from the fact that
>this is unrealistic, it is extremely dangerous, because an
>international moral code does not yet exist, and a nation cannot allow
>itself to descend to the level of survival of the strongest.
>
>The limits of pornography, for example, or those of the usage of drugs,
>are quite variable from one country to another; and anti - negationnist
>laws do not exist everywhere. It is therefore best to act at the
>national level. But it also is true that a national law would have no
>effect since the Networks ignore frontiers.
>
>By leaving the responsibility for the distribution with the
>distributors themselves, country by country, one adopts a non -
>authoritarian attitude that, at least, "limits the damage" and to which
>everyone must adapt in taking on his particular responsibilities.
>
>This solution also poses several legal problems.
>
>Is it legally possible that distributors would have to submit to
>control only "a posteriori", and would not have to worry except in the
>case in which they diffused information which might later be designated
>objectionable by the authority of reference? This is what seems just,
>in this situation, but might it perhaps have some opposite effects?
>Legal scholars must respond.
>
>What legal agency would have this authority of observation? In my
>opinion it ought not to have judicial power: one must leave to judges
>the task of judging. Can it have, however, in certain flagrant cases
>(but how to define these?) an immediate power to suspend, as there is
>in "jugements en re'fe're'"*, so as to avoid the too - long delays
>between the designation of a suspect service and its suppression which
>would result from leaving things to the good will of the distributors?
>
>[*"order in chambers": an interim judicial order, issued to prevent
>abuse / injustice while awaiting a formal decision. JK.]
>
>We are speaking, therefore, of an independent instance (and how to
>assure that independence?), working within the body of French
>legislation. There is a "bureau of advertising review", an independent
>office of great value and efficiency, which acts as a sort of "forum of
>last resort" for determining that which might be fraudulent in an ad.
>Might this be comparable?
>
>[Next, in Part 2, "identifying the messenger?", and some of the
>"de'bat" for which the French are justly famous.]
>
>XXX
>
>
>FYI France (sm)(tm) e - newsletter ISSN 1071 - 5916
>
> *
> | FYI France (sm)(tm) is a monthly electronic newsletter,
> | published since 1992 as a small - scale, personal,
> | experiment, in the creation of large - scale
> | "information overload", by Jack Kessler. Any material
> / \ written by me which appears in FYI France may be
> ----- copied and used by anyone for any good purpose, so
> // \\ long as, a) they give me credit and show my e - mail
> --------- address and, b) it isn't going to make them money: if
> // \\ if it is going to make them money, they must get my
> permission in advance, and share some of the money
>which they get with me. Use of material written by others requires their
>permission. FYI France archives are online at http://infolib.berkeley.edu
>(search for FYIFrance), or via gopher to infolib.berkeley.edu 72
>(path: 3. Electronic Journals (Library-Oriented)/ 6. FYIFrance/ or
>http://www.univ-rennes1.fr/LISTES/biblio-fr@univ-rennes1.fr/ (BIBLIO-FR
>econference archive), or gopher.well.sf.ca.us , or via telnet to
>a.cni.org , login brsuser (PACS / PACS-L econference archive).
>Suggestions, reactions, criticisms, praise, and poison - pen letters
>all will be gratefully received at kessler@well.sf.ca.us .
>
> Copyright 1992- by Jack Kessler, all rights reserved.
>
>
