Re: list and usenet
On Tue, 2006-02-21 at 11:24 -0800, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 14:08:22 -0500
> Kevin Mark <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > >
> > some folks see the idea of suing bar owner or gun owners and wining
> > damages as liberal justice.
> Well, I'm a bar owner, so I have to chime in ;)
> The concept of making the bar owner responsible for the actions of
> patrons is interesting. There are certainly laws on the books in some
> jurisdictions (US, anyway) that DO make the bar owner responsible. So
> called dram-shop laws make the bar owner responsible if their patron
> gets too drunk and ,for example, goes out and kills someone. In fact
> there is insurance to cover such things....
> The practical side to it is that the bar owner has to learn to strike a
> balance between maintaining total, absolute control over the situation
> and maintaining a fun, relaxed and hopefully profitable atmosphere. How
> do you do this? Well, you set a staffing level that provides enough
> surveillance without breaking the bank and hope for the best. obviously
> training and policy come into play as well. The reality is that one
> CANNOT plan for, nor handle, every eventuality. One must make a
> reasonable, responsible effort to maintain control. In the unfortunate
> event that something DOES go wrong, one must first take responsibility
> for the fact that something happened. Examine internally whether
> anything could have reasonably been done about it, and then either
> defend oneself or accept full liability. The question there is what is
> This same logic applies to many other things as well, including
> file-sharing and the use of peer-to-peer networks. What is a reasonable
> amount of effort to prevent piracy? If one has made that reasonable
> effort are they really responsible for those who find a way around
> those efforts?
> Now, having jumped into the middle of a conversation about which I know
> nothing... I"ll crawl back under my rock.
> Wandering OT since 1970.
Nice OT. Thanks.