Why Is It So Difficult To Understand The Difference Between A Platform And A User?

from the head-scratcher dept

Thu, Jul 2nd 2009 3:59pm — Mike Masnick

In the US, thanks to safe harbor rules in the DMCA and the CDA, courts will often toss out misdirected lawsuits that go after a service provider for the actions of a user. To be honest, I've always questioned why we need such safe harbors in the first place, since it should just be basic common sense that a service provider shouldn't be liable for the actions of a user. But, of course, common sense just isn't that common. This can be seen, first, in all the lawsuits that require incantations of the safe harbors to get them tossed out, but even worse, in foreign countries that have no such safe harbor laws. Take for example, a case in India, where Google India is being blamed for content written by bloggers on Blogger. First, Blogger is run by Google, not Google India, so the lawsuit is doubly misdirected -- but, more importantly, Google itself cannot be responsible for what someone writes using its tool. That's like suggesting that Bic is responsible for what you write with its pens. The case involves a guy who was upset about what some bloggers wrote about him -- so of course, he had to sue Google. What's amazing is that the judge seems to have initially bought this as reasonable. It barred Google from hosting any blog that "defamed" this guy. Google has responded by trying to explain the basics of the internet to the judge and how it's impossible for Google to figure out if someone is defaming someone else using its software.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: bloggers, india, libel, platform, safe harbors, user
Companies: google

15 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 2 Jul 2009 @ 4:26pm

At some point, "PLATFORMS" are going to end up facing issues because the promote anonymous posting. Nobody has really broken that one down yet, but one day.

My theory is "It's your domain, you are responsible for what is on it, unless you can show who actually did it."

There has to be responsiblity, without it there is anarchy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ChiDave, 2 Jul 2009 @ 5:17pm
  
  Re: AC
  Or, you could just have your head completely up your ass. There. I'm responsible for saying that. I think it's true. Maybe you can have TechDirt track me down. Idiot.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Jul 2009 @ 6:15pm
    
    Re: Re: AC
    You don't think that Techdirt doesn't track your posting IP, and all your other "essentials"? Please!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Rob R. (profile), 3 Jul 2009 @ 6:06am
      
      Re: Re: Re: AC
      Who gives a fuck if they track it. There is this little thing called freedom of speech in the country I'm in, so if I want to say you're a fucking moron - I can do that and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it. Fucking moron. Oh, and you're a bitch. How's that for icing on the cake?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- CleverName, 2 Jul 2009 @ 5:52pm
  
  Re:
  That's pretty funny.
  
  Papers please! Sir, do you have your papers ?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- and in other news, 3 Jul 2009 @ 5:24am
  
  Re:
  Because it is your building, you need to find out who put all that spray paint on it. You need to take responsibility for what is painted on your building. Therefore, in the future, everyone will be required to show their papers before painting on the sides of buildings.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
freedom, 2 Jul 2009 @ 4:37pm

Missing the point...
>> There has to be responsiblity, without it there is anarchy

There is responsiblity. On the part of the person that posted it.

I supposed that Bic should go ahead and serialize all their pens and license them so we can track back anyone that uses one improperly?

Freedom
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Felix Pleșoianu, 2 Jul 2009 @ 10:13pm

Well, duh! Of course they sue the platform owner. First, because the users are very difficult to identify, and second because they don't have as much money for the suers to extort. It's not lack of common sense, but lawsuits-as-business-model. Which should be punishable by law, but what do we know. All we have is this minor superpower called common sense...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michael L. Slonecker, 2 Jul 2009 @ 10:16pm

Perhaps, and contrary to an earlier article's premise, India just might benefit from the incorporation into its copyright law of safe harbor provisions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jul 2009 @ 10:34pm

Is Flickr responsible if a member uploads kiddie porn pictures?
Is Youtube responsible if a member uploads infringing content?
Is Blogger responsible if a member uploads racist propaganda?

Sometimes the questions themselves contain the answers!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jul 2009 @ 11:31pm

and this is the place where we send all our jobs?
fuck India
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Doctor Strange, 3 Jul 2009 @ 12:36am

I supposed that Bic should go ahead and serialize all their pens and license them so we can track back anyone that uses one improperly?

Clearly not. I mean, that would be like asking everyone to affix two metal plates to the front and back of their automobiles with unique highly-visible serial numbers on them so you could track them down if they drove off after a hit and run or a bank robbery. Society would surely not stand for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Designerfx (profile), 3 Jul 2009 @ 4:48am

welp
platforms are presumed to have more money/easier targets.

It's a lot easier for thousands of people to sue a big corp and have one stupid lawsuit go through, than to do the work and get a subpoena and follow the legal channels to find something that, in the worst case, might be totally legal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Petréa Mitchell, 3 Jul 2009 @ 9:27am

A wild guess
Perhaps the problem is thinking of Blogger et al. as publishers. I mean, they are in certain senses, including many legal ones, but taking the analogy further leads to the impression that the site is making a conscious editorial decision to redistribute that particular content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Jul 2009 @ 9:09am
  
  Re: A wild guess
  Ding! Winner!
  
  The problem of sites like Youtube, Blogger, and such is that they don't just offer "hosting" in the traditional sense, but they also redistribute the content in various ways.
  
  If Youtube only allowed users to link to their video and displayed that video in a blank page (or a page designed by the user and upload by the user) then they would be only a host. When they start to aggregate the content, sorting it, providing html pages, related links, advertsing, and the like, they cross the line from host to publisher (IMHO). This is one of the grey areas of copyright law, something that I think needs to be more clearly addressed.
  
  Hosts / ISPs should have nothing to do with content, they should provide only supporting services and not profit directly from formating and redisplaying content. That isn't hosting.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]