[Asrg] Round 2 of the DNSBL BCP - "collateral damage"

[John Levine]

>I'm not so sure.  In common-law jurisdictions, there is a rule which
>I've seen summarized as "ancient custom has the force of law", which
>has been used to do things like establish public right-of-way across
>private land where an effectively-public path has existed for long
>enough.  It's not clear to me this would wash as a legal argument in
>this context, but it's certainly not clear it wouldn't, either.

That's adverse possession.  I'm pretty sure it's unique to real
estate law.

In any event, it doesn't require anyone to provide any services to
anyone.  It just means that the owner can't exclude the users from
their customary use, e.g., walking along a footpath.  I would be
astonished if owners were required to actively do anything to assist
the users, e.g., maintain a footbridge they happened to use.

R's,
John