[Foundation-l] Legal requirements for sexual content -- help, please!

Mike Godwin mnemonic at gmail.com
Sat May 22 14:42:43 UTC 2010


wiki-list at 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


More information about the foundation-l mailing list