<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<rss version="2.0" xmlns:blogChannel="http://backend.userland.com/blogChannelModule">

<channel>
<title>necessary? in </title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r19182665</link>
<description></description>
<language>en</language>
<pubDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 15:34:14 EDT</pubDate>
<lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 15:34:14 EDT</lastBuildDate>

<item>
<title>Re: necessary?</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19184258</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1205257"><b>Sabre</b></A> : Oops.  Thanks for the correction.  Fixed.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19184258</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 02 Oct 2007 15:36:39 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: necessary?</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19183886</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/636206"><b>Nightshade</b></A> : Slander and libel are civil offenses, not criminal offenses. The rest are criminal offenses however.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19183886</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 02 Oct 2007 14:33:26 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: necessary?</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19182758</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/204858"><b>BillTager</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><small>said by  Sabre <A HREF="/useremail/u/1205257"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br>...Aren't these acts already covered in criminal law?  Impersonation, scamming, or "intentionally spreading inaccurate information" (i.e. slander/libel) are criminal offenses already.  Do they really need to repeat this in the AUP?  It seems unnecessary if that is their concern.</div>I'm no law expert, but I imagine that the reason they feel it is necessary is because criminal punishments resulting from law violations would differ greatly from civil penalties incurred from a lawsuit brought by Verizon for breach of contract. <br><br>It basically gives them the tool to sue the pants off off offenders in addition to whatever criminal sanctions are imposed.<br><br>Remember OJ?<br><small>--<br>Praise be to my Cadillac</small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19182758</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 02 Oct 2007 11:03:39 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>necessary?</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19182665</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1205257"><b>Sabre</b></A> : I understand their concern that such acts could be committed, and it's legitimate.  Their explanation makes it sound like the presence of these clauses in the AUP is benign.<br><br>However.  Aren't these acts already covered in criminal/civil law?  Impersonation, scamming, or "intentionally spreading inaccurate information" (i.e. slander/libel) are criminal/civil offenses already.  Do they really need to repeat this in the AUP?  It seems unnecessary if that is their concern.<br><small>--<br>With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world.<br><br>Save American Soccer - Stop the MLS!</small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19182665</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 02 Oct 2007 10:47:16 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

</channel>
</rss>
