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.)
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.
But don't take my word for it -- read the links yourself!
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/26/google_italy_trial http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/18/limewire_copyright_ruling http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/08/user_comments_ruling
I wouldn't endorse wiki-list's unusual interpretation of the cases, as summed up here:
the days of the internet being a free for all are coming to an end. If websites won't take responsibility, at least to the extent of having a policies in place which are enforced, then others will make it for them, by disabling access to the site.
With regard to the Google case, at least, it looks like taking responsibility doesn't protect you, and with regard to the libel case, moderation increases your risk of liability by undermining your statutory exemption.
--Mike
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.
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.
But don't take my word for it -- read the links yourself!
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/26/google_italy_trial http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/18/limewire_copyright_ruling http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/08/user_comments_ruling
I wouldn't endorse wiki-list's unusual interpretation of the cases, as summed up here:
the days of the internet being a free for all are coming to an end. If websites won't take responsibility, at least to the extent of having a policies in place which are enforced, then others will make it for them, by disabling access to the site.
With regard to the Google case, at least, it looks like taking responsibility doesn't protect you, and with regard to the libel case, moderation increases your risk of liability by undermining your statutory exemption.
So your advice is that in the area of pornographic content the Foundation is best advised to open the flood gates. Will sticking your head in the sand that work for pornographic content alone, or will you have to do the same with all content. No selection for encyclopedic value or notability, because if any of that goes on one might ask why you are deliberately NOT going so for porn?
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
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.
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.
You can't effectively use eccentric results as a straw man to build a general trend in law. The interpretations of a local court only have a limited value as precedent. Whether it's the exemptions or the main provision that will be read narrowly in the long term remains to be seen. There are too many individual words in there that are open to interpretation, even before you get into free speech arguments.
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.
This does not exempt anyone from being realistic. The Foundation, as a corporate person, has no knowledge of its own. Being "pornographic" is meaningless to a corporation, because corporations are incapable of having sex. For a corporation to have knowledge of something there must be evidence that it received that knowledge, and that includes transmission of the fact that such knowledge was in fact illegal. Someone saying that a particular image is pornographic is not enough. Similarly, some nutter with an axe to grind could go to the FBI with claims about pornography on some specified site, but if they took the time to thoroughly investigate every such complaint they would have no time left to do anything useful. Whether a particular image is pornographic is a matter of opinion, and it should not jump to comply with every random complaint.
Yes, there are admins who do moderate. I'm sure that many of them purport to be doing so in bealf of the Foundation. Their rights, however, do not derive from any action by the Foundation but from the action of other admins or volunteer whose own authority does not extend beyond being purported.
With regard to the Google case, at least, it looks like taking responsibility doesn't protect you, and with regard to the libel case, moderation increases your risk of liability by undermining your statutory exemption.
So your advice is that in the area of pornographic content the Foundation is best advised to open the flood gates. Will sticking your head in the sand that work for pornographic content alone, or will you have to do the same with all content. No selection for encyclopedic value or notability, because if any of that goes on one might ask why you are deliberately NOT going so for porn?
The subtlety of the situation clearly escapes you. A track record of moderating only proves that you are capable of doing it. My own feeling is that the Foundation itself should not engage in such acts in the absence of a formal legal notification about offending material. This doesn't stop admins from acting to delete such material, but they do so on their own authority. As representatives of the community they are a part of the structure that defines community norms about pornography as well as other matters.
Ec
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org