SAY WHAT? LIBEL & DEFAMATION ON THE INTERNET By Eric Eden (r3eje@vm1.cc.uakron.edu) On the Internet, where abnormal behavior is the status quo, tempers can flare in the heat of debate and word wars can last for days or even weeks. It's not uncommon for users to ridicule, harass or insult those who disagree with them. But if you damage someone's reputation by trying to embarrass them in a public forum, you could be sued for libel or defamation. After all, there's no reason to assume that the messages you send through cyberspace are immune from lawsuits. "The Internet culture right now is for users to refute speech with speech," says Dave Marburger, the attorney who represented Brock Meeks in one of the first defamation lawsuits in the United States involving the Internet. "But as the Internet culture gets more diverse, users will start refuting speech with lawsuits." There have only been a handful of libel and defamation lawsuits filed involving the Internet so far, but as the Net grows, the number of lawsuits will probably increase. If the few court battles that have been decided involving libel and defamation on the Net are any indication of how the law will be applied to the Internet in the future, it's worth your time to learn what's libelous or defamatory on the Internet and what's not. Other users have the right to sue you for defamation if they can prove you damaged their reputation or good name with false information. You can be sued for libel if another user can prove you have distributed defamatory statements about them in a public area -- such as a news group or mailing list. In April of 1993 Gil Hardwick, an anthropologist in Australia, was ordered by the Australian Supreme Court to pay David Rindos $40,000 in damages because he defamed Rindos on an international mailing list. After Rindos lost his job at the University of West Australia, Hardwick posted a message in a discussion group for anthropologists that suggested Rindos was fired because he was a bully and had sexually molested a local boy. Rindos filed a defamation lawsuit against Hardwick because he felt the message had hurt his chances of finding a new job. In a letter to Rindos's attorney, Hardwick wrote "Let this matter be expedited and done with....I can do nothing to prevent it, lacking any resources whatsoever to defend myself." Like most people, Hardwick didn't have the money to hire a lawyer or finance an expensive legal battle. "He (Rindos) suffered a great deal of personal hurt because of the message," said Supreme Court Justice David Ipp in the West Australian. "The damages award must compensate him and vindicate his reputation to the public." The Internet is an informal forum and people often write personal things about other users, but you can be held accountable in court for making libelous or defamatory remarks in public forums just like Hardwick was. "We know that as the Internet grows, there will be more and more lawsuits involving libel and defamation," says attorney David H. Donaldson, editor of Legal Bytes, an electronic magazine that discusses legal issues involving computers and networking. "The only question is if the number of cases will grow steadily or if there will be an explosion of lawsuits all at once." Anybody can sue you for libel or defamation if they think you damaged their reputation, but if you can prove what you say is true, chances are that you won't end up in court. "Make it clear when you are stating your opinion," says Donaldson, "Always state the facts that your opinions are based on just to be safe. You probably won't lose a libel or defamation lawsuit if you can back up what you write with solid facts." For example, Brock Meeks, a full-time journalist who also distributes his own electronic magazine, avoided losing a defamation lawsuit largely because he could prove an article that he sent over the Net was true. Meeks was sued by Suarez Corporation Industries in April of 1994 for writing an investigative story about the company and its services in his electronic newsletter -- the CyberWire Dispatch. Meeks had no libel insurance, no publishing company backing him up and a lot of legal fees to cover. (His lawyer charged him $200 an hour.) The only thing Meeks had was his house -- and he didn't want to sell it to pay off a lawsuit. Meeks defended his article in numerous posts on the Net, "All of my facts were rock solid. Although the article was delivered with a fair amount of attitude, I don't believe that I'm in dangerous waters," he wrote. Benjamin Suarez, owner of Suarez Corp., filed the suit because he felt that Meeks had damaged his reputation and hurt his business by saying he was "infamous for his questionable direct marketing scams," and saying "he (Suarez) has a mean streak." To back up his opinion, Meeks cited accusations made by the Washington state attorney general's office concerning Suarez's direct marketing practices. In August of 1994 Suarez Corp. made Meeks an offer he couldn't refuse. They agreed to settle the case for $64 -- to cover administrative court costs. The company refused to comment on why they agreed to settle the lawsuit. If the case had gone to trial, Meeks's lawyer thinks Meeks would have been able to win anyway. "The defendants in libel or defamation suits involving the Internet have enhanced First Amendment rights," says Marburger. "The plaintiff has to prove actual malice. In other words, the plaintiff has to show that the defendant made false statements or was negligent." Marburger's only regret is that they didn't get to set that precedent in court. Although the Meeks case doesn't really mean anything in the law books, it does show that if you're responsible and can prove what you write on the Net is true, people will be less likely to take you to court. If you just make something up and your sources aren't reliable, you could lose big like Hardwick did. "You have to follow the same rules that journalists do if your going to write and distribute controversial material about other people," says Donaldson. The increasingly common phenomenon of online forums creates the possibility for you to reach large audiences, but it also creates the ability for you to commit defamation or libel -- something that an ordinary citizen didn't have to worry about in the past. before the growth of online communication, people who didn't work in the media usually didn't have to worry about libel or defamation. "Libel laws apply to the Internet the same way they do to newspapers and TV stations," explains former Federal Communications Commissioner Nicholas Johnson, a professor at the Iowa University school of law. "The same technology that gives you the power to share your opinion with thousands of people also qualifies you to be a defendant in a lawsuit." Like a newspaper or TV station, you are responsible for making sure the material you distribute -- or broadcast -- over the Internet is not libelous or defamatory. Lani Teshia-Miller never meant to defame anyone, but when she took over the distribution of a tattoo FAQ she almost ended up in court. The rec.arts.bodyart FAQ she inherited contained a lot of generalizations based on contributions from unattributed sources. Although she listed her name on the FAQ, she didn't edit out several defamatory statements. One review of a San Francisco tattoo artist in the FAQ said, "He's getting old and having problems with his eyesight. His quality is really bad and he hurts people." After the artist hired a lawyer and threatened to sue, Teshia- Miller changed the FAQ's wording to reflect a more factually-based and less-hysterical view. The review now says, "His eyesight is not what it used to be." After the FAQ was changed and Teshia-Miller apologized, the artist dropped the lawsuit. "It turned out to be a good experience for me," said Teshia- Miller. "I'm a lot more careful about what I allow on the artist list, and I now have a very long disclaimer at the beginning of the FAQ." Every person you write something negative about won't sue you for defamation or libel, they might flame you or just try to set the record straight by replying to the message. But if you post false information about another user and disgrace them in public, they have the right to take you to court -- and they could win a big settlement if they can prove you were negligent. Medphone, a Fortune 500 company that manufactures medical instruments, has filed a $200 million lawsuit against Prodigy user Peter DeNigis. Medphone filed a "systematic program for defamation and trade disparagement" lawsuit against DeNigis after a stockholder reported that he was making several negative posts about Medphone a day on Prodigy's Money Talk Forum. DeNigis, a former Medphone stockholder, lost more than $9,000 last year by selling off his investment in the company. In one post DeNigis wrote, "My research indicated the company is really having a difficult time. No case, no sales, no profits and terrible management. This company appears to be a fraud. Probably will cease operations soon." Although the accusation that Medphone is a "fraud" is very serious -- and potentially defamatory -- DeNigis might be able to win the lawsuit if he can prove what he wrote is true in court. "The Medphone case is a clear indication that libel and defamation is something for Internet users to think about," says Johnson. There are court cases in progress right now that will decide if access providers such as Prodigy, America Online and Compuserve are responsible for defamatory remarks broadcast over their services, but there is no legal ambiguity about whether individual users can be sued for making defamatory or libelous statements. Individual users are responsible for making sure the information they distribute is not libelous or defamatory. The Internet has made world wide, instantaneous communication easy. The average user now has the power to be heard by hundreds or even thousands of other users, but in terms of libel and defamation, the Net is not a new world of freedom. The reality is that libel and defamation laws are enforceable in the virtual world just like they are in the real world. # # # You may distribute this article freely for non-profit purposes. Otherwise contact the author (Eric Eden -- R3eje@vm1.cc.uakron.edu) for reprint permission. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% JACKING IN FROM THE "BACK FROM THE DEAD" PORT By Brock N. Meeks (brock@well.sf.ca.us) CyberWire Dispatch Copyright (c) 1994 Washington, DC -- Nothing chills -- or inflames -- the Net faster than when word of the dreaded "FCC Modem Tax" begins ooze through Cyberspace. Well... it's back. Sort of. Ruth Milkman, legal advisor to Federal Communications Commission Chairman Reed Hundt, said during a recent question and answer session that the agency might again take up the issue of the so-called modem tax. "Some years down the road I can see access fees [for enhanced service providers] being considered by the FCC," Milkman said during a phone interview. "But only under the scenario when access charges are reformed." These access charges are a kind of trip wire phrase which online activists have dubbed a "modem tax" when applied to enhanced service providers, which is another catch phrase meaning services like America Online and CompuServe. Milkman said the FCC would only consider an access charge under a very narrow scenario which would play out only if "enhanced service providers felt that by paying the access charges they weren't contributing to a subsidy scheme set up for (long distance phone companies)," Milkman said. So, what the hell is an "access charge"? Take a deep breath. Here goes: Access charges are paid by long distance companies to local telephone companies. Every time a company such as AT&T connects a caller in Des Moines with Uncle Bert in New York, it has to pay Nynex, the local telephone company, a fee for the privilege of carrying that long distance call over their facilities, commonly known as the "local loop." Long distance companies pay up to 40% of their entire revenues to local telephone companies. That's billions and billions of dollars each year that flow into the hands of the Baby Bells, just for completing the calls. The access fees are set at artificially high rates because they contain a mind numbing set of complex subsidies, the most obvious one is that which underwrites the public policy known as "Universal Service." Back in the days when the FCC only had rotary dial phones (circa 1987) someone came up with the brilliant idea that because modem use was increasing at such a rapid pace, that maybe services such as Sprintlink (then known as telenet) and CompuServe should have to pay these access charges, too. After all, the FCC wonks postured, they carry long distance (modem) traffic over the phone lines? It would only be fair to have these "enhanced service providers" as they are known in FCC-speak, also help out the impoverished long distance phone companies underwrite Universal Service. Bingo. The hue and cry that went up from the online community (it wasn't yet called "the Net") was enormous. The major players -- Telenet and CompuServe -- quickly branded the plan as a "tax" and thus the phrase "modem tax" was born. Dire warnings went out: If the FCC succeeded in making enhanced service providers chip in for access fees, it would increase the cost of each hour of online time by at least $6 per hour. And remember, this was in the days when a 2,400-bps modem was the hottest thing going. Six bucks an hour would have demolished the struggling online industry. The fallout among the nascent online community was astounding. For the first time in history, the "net" community rose up with a single voice and FLOODED the FCC with protests. FCC official "filing kits" made the rounds, teaching people how to file official comments of protest. The ground swell of opposition worked. The FCC was buried in responses. At the time, the FCC said it was the hottest item in its history, garnering more response than any issue in history. The FCC eventually backed off. The reason: It was persuaded that enhanced service providers were still entrepreneurial companies and couldn't afford the burden of access fees. The proposal was officially dropped. It was the first major victory for the Net. And it was empowering. The online community became educated and enlightened almost over night to the ways of an arcane governmental agency. And this community was drunk with a heady kind of power: It could sufficiently affect the outcome of governmental regulation. Small catch: The damn "modem tax" issue wouldn't die. Someone with the brains of a trout began to circulate the now infamous "modem tax" file. The file claims that Jim Eason, a San Francisco radio talk show host had aired a segment in which he claimed to have inside information that the FCC was about to relaunch its "modem tax" proposal. The message was and is a HOAX. But it also has never died. It's the Net's first "urban myth" and like Freddie, it refuses to die, even to this day. Milkman, who was on-board at the FCC during the 1987 modem tax firefight, sighed when explaining the complex issue: "Part of the problem is that nobody is exactly sure what all the subsidies are. Most people agree that there are subsidies in the access charges, but you can't break out those subsidies exactly." Another factor in play: Sometimes enhanced service providers are really just reselling long distance transport after having bought large blocks of time from a major carrier like AT&T. Thus, to have these enhanced service providers also pay an access fee amounts to a kind of double-dipping, Milkman said. As it turns out, Congress might have as much to say about a future "modem tax" as the FCC. This twisted scenario turns on the tenuous grasp that everyone from the Vice President to Commerce Department to the FCC has on exactly what constitutes "Universal Service," in the era of the Information Superhighway. Revamping the 60 year old Communications Act of 1934 will be up to Congress this year. And they will likely do it. But how universal service is defined remains a big mystery. And who ends up paying for and maintaining that public policy (which isn't about to be abolished) also remains a mystery. Don't be surprised if, when the legislative smoke clears, not only do enhanced service providers -- America Online, CompuServe and Prodigy, et al -- have to pay access fees, but also your Internet provider and your cable company. And who do you think will end up catching those cost increases?? Right. Your wallet. But for now? Rest easy, Milkman says: "I want to make this very clear: There is NO docket [open] in which the Commission is proposing making enhanced service providers pay access charges. And I don't anticipate it coming up." Meeks out... %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% ANNOUNCING SLIPKNOT: Shareware dialup Web browser for Windows By Felix Kramer (felixk@panix.com) Dear Electronic Journalist How long will the World Wide Web be accessible to only a small fraction of dial-up users? I'm writing to tell you about a new and important application for Internet users that's was released last week, and that I think should be of interest to you (and perhaps to your readers.) In one sentence, it's a graphical Windows-based browser for the World Wide Web, for users with dial-up UNIX accounts -- but one that doesn't require SLIP, PPP or TCP/IP access. (You'll find a longer description below.) It's intended to expand and democratize access to the WWW to those with ordinary dial-up accounts -- at a time when TCP/IP access is available only to a small fraction of the online population. Until now, access to the hypermedia-based Web has been limited to those with SLIP, PPP or TCP/IP access, using Mosaic and similar browsers. That's only a small fraction of the online population--a few million at most, worldwide. Unless they were willing to go through considerable technical acrobatics, most people with dial-up UNIX accounts were locked out of the Web. Many of these people are accustomed to their UNIX tools for reading mail and news, and don't want to switch to SLIP even if their systems offer the option. (We may be talking about something over 20 million people worldwide, with service through their companies, schools, universities, or Internet Service providers.) In journalistic terms, there are several stories here: 1) As discussed above, SlipKnot will expand the population of users who can use the Web. 2) SlipKnot is pioneering in its distribution/sale policy. SlipKnot is restricted shareware in its first version from MicroMind, Inc. Until now, shareware has generally been distributed with a simple request for users to register; SlipKnot takes that one step further. It is restricted shareware. That means it is free for evaluation but with strong incentives to frequent users to register. After a period of frequent reminders, the software eventually turns itself off for nonregistering users. 3) Registration fees or on a sliding scale. For most, the cost is $29.95. But individuals outside Northern America, Europe and Japan will pay $20 to register. A portion of the receipts will go to support refugee organizations (Peter Brooks, the developer, came to the U.S. as a refugee). 4) SlipKnot is a case study in the new technology of virtual commerce. All promotion, distribution, and registration is being done online. No physical shrink-wrapped disk or manual is produced: users download the product with documentation. There is no paid advertising or direct mail: potential purchasers learn about it through online newsgroups, user groups, mailing lists, and through the press. There is no printed and mailed press kit: the media hears about it through electronic means -- e-mailed press materials and announcements. Registrants send in their addresses and payments through fax or encrypted e-mail, and their personal codes are returned to them by e-mail. All this is rapid, efficient, and economical. Below you'll find info on where to get it. If you want to see what others are saying about SlipKnot, we've attached some early reactions. **NOTE** This press kit is incomplete. To keep down the size of this message, and ensure that you get the most recent information, AT ANY TIME, you can automatically retrieve SlipKnot's features, list of limitations, and technical specifications for what SlipKnot requires on the user's computer and at the service provider, by sending a blank e-mail message to our autoreplying infobot: slipknot@micromind.com I'm a consultant to institutions interested in publishing on the net, and author of a book on electronic publishing as a business. I'm doing promotion for the release of SlipKnot. Feel free to forward this message to other journalists, movers and shakers on the net. If possible, please let me know if you're planning to run a story; if it's in online form, I'd be very grateful to get an e-mail copy; if in printed form, I'd appreciate getting a tear sheet mailed to me at 310 Riverside Drive, Suite 1519, New York, NY 10025. Please contact me or Peter Brooks (the developer, pbrooks@micromind.com) if you have any questions. In any stories, please do not publish my phone number; you can give out my e-mail address and fax number. Thanks in advance--Felix Kramer * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * HOW TO GET SLIPKNOT * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * SlipKnot 1.0, the World Wide Web browser for Windows dial-up users from MicroMind,Inc., is now available (right on schedule!) for anonymous ftp download at: ftp://oak.oakland.edu/SimTel/win3/internet/slnot100.zip or, if it's not too busy, from: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/pbrooks/slipknot/slnot100.zip oak.oakland.edu has numerous mirror sites, so if you have any trouble getting it directly from there, please try the mirror sites. One mirror site is: ftp.uoknor.edu/mirrors/SimTel/win3/internet/slnot100.zip In the U.K. try: src.doc.ic.ac.uk/computing/systems/ibmpc/simtel-win3/internet/slnot100.zip In Australia try: ftp.bf.rmit.edu.au /pub/pc/www/slnot100.zip (If you don't get to it for a while, please look at the distribution site for the latest version file, that is, slnotxxx.zip -- where "xxx" indicates the Version of SlipKnot. So, for instance, Version 1.0 is slnot100.zip, and Version 1.35 will be slnot135.zip.) You can also get a FAQ, focusing primarily on common installation problems, at: ftp://interport.net/pub/pbrooks/slipknot/sntfaq1.txt * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * WHAT PEOPLE HAVE SAID ABOUT SLIPKNOT SINCE ITS RELEASE IN LATE NOVEMBER (INDIVIDUALS FOLLOWED BY PRESS) (AFFILIATIONS FOR IDENTIFICATION ONLY) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * UNSOLICITED COMMENTS FROM BETA TESTERS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * "SlipKnot is a godsend for those without slip."--Walter Rice, 11th grade student at Central High School, Philadelphia "I have really enjoyed SlipKnot. After trying for over a year to get Mosaic to work on my PC at home, I found SlipKnot easy to install and use. "--Mike McKee "This is a fun program. A LOT of magazines lately have been talking about Internet and the world wide web - and almost all of them say something like "To really delve into Internet - you'll need a SLIP or PPP connection." Get the word out about SlipKnot.. cause they're dead wrong. I have a shell account and it's got everything most people could want. I can read newsgroups, send/receive email, use telnet/ftp, download files, and (with SlipKnot) browse the World Wide Web! To be honest.. what else is there?"--Steve Crawford, MIS Manager for SpectraLink, Inc., Boulder, Colorado "I can use it with my dial-up and the price is certainly right--so I'm no longer lusting for a SLIP/PPP connection....If *I* can use this program so easily, anybody can....."--Kristi Olesen, author and parent "SlipKnot is simple to install, use and configure and wonderful in the sense that the wonders of the Internet are now truly available to me. As you can tell, I love this product. Thanks!"--Tami Duggan, Commonwealth Clinical Systems, Inc., Virginia "Keep up the good work. You've got a winner."--Steven Pitzl "Real slick....In general, the look and feel of SlipKnot is well-integrated & tight....Very cool setup....After looking at many web browsers, I must say y'all have a very unique browser, with a gorgeous interface, well-thought out and tightly integrated. And smooth. SlipKnot. I'm certainly telling everyone I know about it...."--Mark Garland, Civil Engineering Office, Santa Fe National Forest * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * REVIEWS FROM USENET AND MAIL TO MICROMIND * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * "Excellent software got it running with almost no problems. Congratulations."--Alan from United Kingdom "For a first release, Slipknot is amazing. It installed easily and worked first time."--Will from netcom "Overall, a really cool program, and quite clever."--SteveG from neosoft "This is exactly the program I've been searching for these past few months....While I loved the web browsing, I found I much preferred the Unix programs on my shell account. Now you've given me the best of both worlds. Thank you!"--Nelia from netcom "Solid as a rock."--Rajesh from Temple University "A really neat program! Saves me time charges on my SLIP account."--Larry from netcom "-- "Great Job Mr. Brooks ! well done !"--Amir from Bremen University, Germany "You've done an amazing job, without requiring the usual add-ons. I have spent hours with SlipKnot in many Web adventures and love the ability to toggle it when I want it and to use 'trn' and 'lynx' (the latter for form searches and for fastest text-response) and pine. So I'll get a check in the mail this week. Absolutely no GPF's, and your keyboard unfreeze resolved my one freeze in terminal."--Andrys from netcom ">One of the most exciting software programs I have seen lately."--Harald from Univ of Cincinnati "A major thumbs up!"--Darren from digex "Bravo!! What can I say? Seems to be a very stable, and actually pretty quick little program."--Mark from Pipeline "Wow! I've been spreading the word about Slipknot--I don't know when I've been more impressed with software in terms of the ease of use. Thanks again. I really think you've got a winner on your hands."--Steve from netcom "It worked! This is fantastic! I'm registering my copy ASAP. NOW I can see what everyone's so excited about."--Chris from tenet.edu "We are working on our Internet CD-ROM disc and would include your program as the user interface."--Stefan from Germany "Terrific work and a real contribution to the Internet community."--William from George Washington University "I've been using your software for the past five days and I just wanted to say how much I enjoy using it. BTW, I sent in my registration/check"--Warren from ncsc.mil "I think it's terrific, especially the ability to download WWW pages and group in folders for future reference off-line!"--Deb from digex "I'm very happy with SlipKnot and am enjoying seeing for the first time what all the fuss is about regarding the WWW."--Phil from panix "I can't say whether it's better than Mozilla, TIA, etc., but it sure turns a shell account into a multimedia banquet!"--Daniel Dern from world.std.com "I want to roundly condemn you for making and distributing this program. It is so simple and easy to use, has so many useful functions and works so flawlessly that I will probably spend many more hours in front of my computer than I should :-). Anyway, thank you for a superb web browser. Give yourself a gold star."--Mark from netcom "This is so cool, you could get frostbite from it."--William from Denver * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * EARLY COMMENTS IN THE PRESS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * "Pure, unadulterated magic"--Daniel Dern, noted Internet analyst and author, "The Internet Guide For New Users" (McGraw-Hill, 1993) "Will SlipKnot cause a Web traffic explosion? SlipKnot is a MS-Windows Web browser that can be used with a dial-up shell account. Could this be the answer for those without a direct or Slip/PPP connection? SlipKnot is a very welcome addition to the Web tool box. It will make available the Web's graphical displays to a whole new group of Internet users.--Bob Stewart, The Virtual Mirror -- http://mirror.wwa.com/mirror/ "Its chief author, Peter Brooks...plans to sell SlipKnot as shareware. That means you download it free from an on-line service, try it out and if you decide to keep it, mail the programmer a check. Brooks plans to ask for $29.95. It's a steal....At the touch of a button, SlipKnot turned into a World Wide Web browser that in some ways worked better than Mosaic. It ran a little slower than Mosaic, but not much. And it works without the expense and trouble of a PPP account....SlipKnot is going to be a strong competitor."--Hiawatha Bray, Detroit Free Press, DFP Forum on Compuserve "Spurred by a desire to share the wonders of the Web with the vast dial-up population, developer Peter Brooks created SlipKnot....'We have a small lifetime worth of work in terms of features to include in the product,' Brooks confided. 'We will continue to improve it as time goes on.' "--Dianna Husum, WEBster, the Cyberspace Surfer "...A major technological breakthrough. SlipKnot is, as people used to say, 'for the manor woman on the street,' and it, and its successor software, will invite millions more people to the Web's vibrant new culture."--Joyce Lain Kennedy, LA Times Syndicate author, in Hookup/Get Hired, forthcoming from John Wiley & Sons in 1995 "One of the best features of this browser is its ability to retrieve documents in the background. According to MicroMind, SlipKnot is more than just a Web browser. This program allows for complete navigation of the Net and promises to bring Web access to almost all Internet users."--Patrick McKenna, Newsbytes "...for those trapped with terminal-emulation access to the Internet and salivating at the new stuff they hear is on the Web, this product is simply miraculous.--Richard Seltzer, Internet-on-a-Disk "One advantage is that whatever Web pages it gets, it keeps them until you decide to delete them. Once you're offline, you can go back and review pages you had browsed while online. You can keep as many pages as your available computer memory allows. SlipKnot is amazing. When it was first announced on Internet, I was skeptical whether such a program could work. Now, I'm a beiever."--John Fisher, Bucks County Times Courier SlipKnot has appeared in the National Center for Supercomputing Applications (NCSA) "What's New Page", Computer Underground Digest, and the Usenet moderated newsgroups comp.newprod & comp.internet.net-happenings * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * SLIPKNOT AS SHAREWARE * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * SlipKnot is published as restricted shareware, free for evaluation but with strong incentives to frequent users to register at a cost of $29.95 to most people. Individuals outside Northern America, Europe and Japan will be asked to pay $20 to register. And 10% of the receipts will go to support refugee organizations. Our shareware evaluation policy is that users who have displayed/retrieved over 300 documents are no longer evaluating the software (this should take about 2 months of typical usage) and will be asked to register within 30 days -- with an additional 21-day grace period if they start the registration process. We hope that few users will object to the policy, given the price of the software. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * NOTE FROM PETER BROOKS, SLIPKNOT DEVELOPER * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * SlipKnot was created because there was, at that time, no other alternative to accessing the World Wide Web graphically if you did not have SLIP or PPP or TCP/IP access. Having analyzed Mosaic and some of its competitors, I concluded that all of these browsers were designed for people with very rapid communications channels into the Internet, not modem users. Even if you have SLIP access, most of these browsers do not allow you to save entire documents (with the included pictures), forcing you to retrieve the documents again whenever you wish to take a full look at them -- eliminating the possibility of demonstrating WWW without being online. It takes a while to retrieve any document by modem with any browser, and you shouldn't have to do this more than once. The Web is a remarkable human construct and a truly a wondrous place. I hope that SlipKnot brings you the magic of the Web, and that you become as astounded by it as I am. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ABOUT MICROMIND * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * MicroMind, Inc. is a New York City-based software development company with six major products developed and released for the international market, including: * RUN/C -- the world's first interpreter for the C language -- sold in the U.S. and Japan. 20,000 copies sold at $250. * OL2 -- a product to duplicate the functionality of Sharp Electronics' Wizard Electronic Organizer on a desktop computer -- marketed by Sharp worldwide. Over 150,000 copies sold at $100. PETER BROOKS, President of MicroMind and author of SlipKnot, has over 25 years of software development experience. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * FEEDBACK * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To facilitate communication and support, we are asking users to post comments and responses about SlipKnot only to the following Usenet newsgroup: comp.infosystems.www.users. At any time, for the latest SlipKnot information and a list of features, either point your WWW browser (lynx is fine) to: http://www.interport.net/slipknot/slipknot.html or send a blank e-mail message to: slipknot@micromind.com. Please direct any press or distribution questions to felixk@panix.com. vox: 212/866-4864. fax: 212/866-5527 Please direct any technical questions to: slpstaff@micromind.com Mail to Peter Brooks can be sent to: pbrooks@micromind.com fax: 212/864-0436 SlipKnot is Trademarked by MicroMind, Inc. This document (c) 1994 by MicroMind, Inc. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Felix Kramer/Kramer Communications NYC-based electronic publishing & journalism Online promotion & marketing e-mail: felixk@panix.com or felixkramr@aol.com voice: 212/866-4864 fax: 212/866-5527 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *