Next-Gen DVD Copy Protection Well And Truly Busted

Judges Quickly Tossing Out Bogus Internet Liability Cases

from the good-news dept

Thu, Feb 22nd 2007 6:19pm — Mike Masnick

In the past, we've covered why section 230 of the Communications Decency Act makes a lot of sense (despite plenty of other flaws in that law). What it says is that a service provider isn't liable for the actions its users take within the service. This makes fundamental sense (it's almost too bad there even needs to be a law pointing it out), because what it's saying is that you don't blame whoever made the tool, you blame whoever used it. You don't blame the telephone company if someone uses the telephone to commit a crime, and therefore you don't blame the ISP or website when a user does something illegal as well. Over the years, the courts have had various decisions (some good, some bad) concerning section 230, but it's beginning to get to the point where judges seem comfortable quickly dismissing bogus claims against service providers. Eric Goldman points to a recent case where a user of MSN's forums got upset about some messages on the forums and rather than going after those who made the statements, sued Microsoft. Microsoft filed a motion to dismiss per section 230 and, voila, case dismissed. Hopefully, this will start to become common practice so that the courts aren't littered with these types of bogus cases much longer.

9 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2007 @ 6:24pm

What works for Microsoft doesn't necessarily work for everyone else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Bumbling old fool, 22 Feb 2007 @ 7:52pm
  
  Re:
  What works for Microsoft doesn't necessarily work for everyone else.
  
  Are you sure about that?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2007 @ 8:19pm

One problem is that ISPs and web site hosts are not required to divulge the identity of those making slanderous statements about a person and often won't without a court order.

To get this information it is necessary to sue the provider rather than the law breaker.

I don't have a good solution, but as long as people hide behind providers to remain anonymous it will remain necessary to sue providers when one wishes to file a civil suit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Wizard Prang, 23 Feb 2007 @ 6:39am
  
  I am not a lawyer but...
  To get this information it is necessary to sue the provider rather than the law breaker.
  
  Nope. To get this information they need something called a warrant.
  
  Alternatively something called a Court Order might do it.
  
  No lawsuit required.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kentucky Fats, 22 Feb 2007 @ 8:55pm

et tu brute
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Monarch, 22 Feb 2007 @ 9:03pm

Re: #3 AC
It's easy to get a subpeona, just by filing the forms in small claims court, for the ISP to release the information on the user. ISP's willing give up information quickly, once a court ordered subpeona is issued.
However, to give that info out without it, could get the ISP sued over privacy issues. There is a reason they don't give it out freely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
erv, 22 Feb 2007 @ 9:12pm

freedom of speech buddy...if I can you suk in the public square I should be able to say it online. Bravo to the courts...bravo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Wizard Prang, 23 Feb 2007 @ 6:40am
  
  On the other hand...
  ...you had better back it up with some facts, or you could be committing slander/libel.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
vapiddreamer, 22 Feb 2007 @ 10:14pm

not hiding behind the ISP
I'm hiding behind peergaurdian =p
cause, in fact, #5 is right on-- why would I expect the ISP to put their neck out for me?? Protect ya neck kid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]