wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
Mike Godwin wrote:
wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk writes:
Across the world the "Nobody is home" argument is quickly running out of
steam. Google execs sentenced to 6 months in Italy, LimeWire guilty for its user's piracy, and blog owner found liable for user submitted libel.
It helps to actually read the stories and understand the cases. The Google execs were found guilty even though they quickly responded to a complaints and removed the offending video. In other words, they didn't make the "nobody is home" argument.
Limewire is a contributory-infringement case that has nothing to do with publisher liability. (Limewire distributed software.)
The point being made is that courts are taking a narrow reading of the exemptions. At issue is going to be whether Congress having passed 2257 did they intend for the safe-harbor exemptions to allow an organization to evade those regulations simply by allowing anonymous users to upload pornographic content.
I doubt you can actually tie together in a reasonable fashion the reading of US congress passed laws and what passes for juridifical sillyness internationally (and the US has no cause to smirk in this respect!!) I have previously thought the idea of moving the servers out from the US as just a joke, on the grounds that the US courts don't as a rule tend to swerve towards slapstick-comedy in applying laws.
And the blog owner actually hasn't been found liable for user-submitted libel in the Register story published. As the story is reported, the blog owner has merely been told that moderation of content runs the risk of *creating* liability by removing the exemptions for mere hosts. The decision is regarding a pre-trial motion. In other words, the case has precisely the opposite meaning of what wiki-list writes here, since it focuses on the risks of moderation, not the risks of non-moderation.
The foundation or the site admins do moderate. The foundation or they DO have the power, to delete submissions that are considered non encyclopedic, trolling, libelous and etc. There is constant moderation on by or on behalf of the foundation. If not teh Foundation then the admins have responsibility. The foundation is not acting simply as a hosting site that merely stores user submitted data. It is not godaddy, it is not wordpress, it is not even YouTube.
Again, this argument fails the "laugh test". Sure there might in a completely perversely constructed universe be a totally idiotic argument that every editor of wikipedia is in some -- complete failure of parody here -- sense "employed" by the foundation, because they are so richly rewarded for their labours.
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen