Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (1944)	1/21/2001 4:43:13 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Well, you'd CERTAINLY know libel. hehehehe JLA

To: epicure who wrote (1944)	1/21/2001 4:45:40 PM
From: hobo	Respond to of 82486

GZ should read up on libel suits. Well, indeed... i started doing my own and finding some interesting stuff. the best part i liked is the fact that it is an "evolving law" which i will take it as a law that it is being not only open to interpretation but also not yet being entirely written. imagine what it would be the "test" case to see the law evolve... here is one: ________________________ arentfox.com Potential Liability for On-Line Service Providers By Anthony V. Lupo On-line service providers may be subject to liability under libel and copyright laws for information uploaded onto their bulletin boards by their subscribers. This article addresses the evolving law in this area and concludes with a discussion of possible safeguards which may either insulate or limit the on-line service provider's potential liability. A. Libel Law Whether or not the on-line service provider controls or regulates the content of the bulletin board is critical to the liability question. If an on-line service provider attempts to regulate the content or attempts to control what is uploaded, then it may be liable as if it were a publisher of the uploaded materials. If the on-line service provider does not exercise this control, it will be treated not as a publisher but as a mere distributor and will likely not be held liable. Two major cases have addressed the issue. In one case,Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc., 776 F. Supp. 135 (S.D.N.Y. 1991), CompuServe was held not responsible for allegedly libelous remarks posted in an on-line newsletter managed by an independent contractor. The Court stated: CompuServe is essentially an electronic, for-profit library that carries a vast number of publications and collects usage and membership fees from its subscribers. . . . CompuServe has no more editorial control over such a publication than does a public library, bookstore or newsstand, and it would be no more feasible for CompuServe to examine every publication it carries for potential defamatory statements than it would be for any other distributor to do so. 776 F. Supp. at 140. In the second case, Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co., 1995 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 229 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 24, 1995), the Court ruled that a libel suit against Prodigy could continue because Prodigy had advertised itself as a family-oriented network that, among other safeguards, authorized bulletin board system operators to remove user-posted messages and utilized a software program to screen offensive language. Because Prodigy had attempted to control the content of the bulletin board, it had essentially held itself out as being a publisher of the information. The Prodigy decision has been widely criticized for imposing an unreasonable burden on service providers and it is unclear whether it will be uniformly applied in other jurisdictions. A finding that an on-line service provider is a "publisher of the information" subjects the service provider to liability, because one who republishes a libel is subject to the same liability as the original publisher. In contrast, if an on-line service provider is not regulating the content of the bulletin board, it will be considered a "distributor of the information," much like a bookstore or a library, and will be liable for defamatory statements made by others only if it knew or had reason to know of the defamatory statement. B. Copyright Law The second type of liability an on-line service provider may be subject to is copyright infringement for copyrighted materials that are uploaded onto the bulletin board. For example, inPlayboy Enterprise, Inc. v. Frena, 839 F. Supp. 1552 (M.D. Fla. 1993), Playboy sued the on-line service provider because a subscriber of the service uploaded digital copies of photographs for which Playboy owned the copyright registrations. The Court held the on-line service provider directly liable for the distribution of unauthorized copies on the service as well as the display of unauthorized copies to subscribers in contravention of Playboy's copyrights even though the on-line service provider had no knowledge that the subscriber had uploaded the photographs. The Court further stated that "t does not matter that [the on-line service provider] may have been unaware of the copyright infringement. . . . Intent or knowledge is not an element of infringement, and thus even an innocent infringer is liable. . . ." Id. at 1559. This decision seems to impose a next-to-impossible burden on an on-line service provider to screen all uploaded information and material. The principal problem with this view is that an on-line service provider has no way of knowing whether the information or material is subject to copyright protection. The courts have justified imposing this heavy burden by relying on the fact that the Copyright Act gives courts the discretion to consider the innocent intent of the infringer in determining the amount of damages to be awarded. See Playboy, 839 F. Supp. at 1559, and D.C. Comics Inc. v. Mini Gift Shops, 912 F.2d 29 (2d Cir. 1990). C. Potential Defense to a Libel Suit or a Copyright Infringement Suit One way for an on-line service provider to protect itself from damage exposure is to have a written, signed contract with its subscribers. The contract should state that (1) the subscriber acknowledges that the on-line service provider does not regulate the content of its on-line service; (2) the subscriber acknowledges that the information it is uploading will be considered in the public domain; (3) the subscriber warrants that it has all rights necessary to submit such information it is uploading; and (4) the on-line service provider will not take any responsibility to determine what information is protected nor will it be responsible for the use of the information by other subscribers. In addition, the contract should include an indemnity clause which requires the subscriber to indemnify the on-line service provider against actions brought by a third party alleging improper use, publication, distribution or display of the protected material. This is not foolproof but it should help to protect the on-line service provider if a legal action is ever brought against it for posting protected materials. If this type of contract is impractical, then an on-line service provider may attempt to protect itself by including a disclaimer on the front screen every time a subscriber logs on. This safeguard should also be employed by on-line service providers who already have written contracts with their subscribers. The disclaimer should simply incorporate the elements listed above. However, this type of disclaimer offers much less protection than a written contract. The law is still evolving with respect to the "information superhighway" and the potential liability of an on-line service provider. In order to bring some clarity and uniformity to this area, legislation was introduced in Congress and is currently pending. ------------------------------------------ even if the "on-line service provider" is not liable (or proven so), the author of the statements would probably be held liable.

To: epicure who wrote (1944)	1/21/2001 7:51:43 PM
From: GROUND ZERO™	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 82486

Okay, I can see it now... a completely unknown person who uses a nick name "GROUND ZERO" posts a comment which is generally true about statements drug abusers make and then another totally unknown person who is only known by the nick name "X the Unknown" redirects the statement towards herself and then says she's libeled... hmmm... sounds reasonable to me... well, that should hold up in court alright... yep, you have a case, knock yourself out.....<g> the docket will read: X the Unknown vs. GROUND ZERO That should be good for a few laughs.....<g> I say go for it!!!!! GZ