how-to block ads
|
|
Uniqs:
261 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
Reviews:
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| Hate to burst your balloon Tim Wu and DSL Reports Just a quick read of the 1998 immunity law makes it clear that "without selection of the material" and "without modification of content" is intended to provide immunity for user-generated content as opposed to ISP-generated content. In other words, the ISP doesn't select material or modify content to create a new artifact, it just makes what the user created available over the network.
Simply *blocking* undesirable content would not fall under selection or modification. Tim Wu is frothing hyberbolic because he is so against network filters.
Using Tim Wu's argument, closing an AT&T-network-hosted child porn website would violate the 1998 law.
This post by DSL Reports is really bad journalism. It's like the one a week or so ago that said "The RIAA says ripping CDs to your MP3 player is illegal!" Well, no, they didn't.
You are letting your biases influence your reporting.
And the hordes of "Yeah! AT&T Sucks! Kill Them" idiots will follow you right down the path.
Hey -- it may WELL BE a stupid move by AT&T. But this "it's illegal" is a complete red herring. | |
| The Common Carrier status is basically a legal shield that recognizes that the dumb pipe provider can't filter out everything so they're not liable for anything. It's the same concept that keeps Verizon from being liable if two criminals use Verizon cell phones to plot a robbery.
What AT&T is going to do, however, is put systems in place to stop copyright violations. Now, we all know that these systems won't be fool proof. You can't possibly stop all violations. (This post, for example, is copyrighted. Will AT&T stop it if this post appears, completely intact, on a blog?) However, by making the effort, they lose their Common Carrier status and open themselves up to litigation when their filters fail.
If I find out that a user on AT&T downloaded a work of mine without properly paying for it (assuming I wasn't giving it away for free), I might now be able to sue AT&T for aiding the pirates. Same if that person was sharing the work on a P2P group and AT&T didn't stop them.
It's opening a huge legal liability. I'm surprised that their lawyers aren't going into seizures just thinking about it.
--
-Jason Levine
Support a children's charity. Buy a calendar. Shooting For A Cause
Jason's Toolbox | PCQandA.com | |
 PolarBear03The bear formerly known as aaron8301Premium
join:2005-01-03 | said by Jason Levine:It's opening a huge legal liability. I'm surprised that their lawyers aren't going into seizures just thinking about it. I think the only reason they aren't is because they have the same problem the RIAA lawyers do: they are old, old-fashioned lawyers that simply don't grasp all the concepts of today's technology. AT&T and the RIAA's lawyers are not network admins, plain and simple. They're a bunch of old farts that went to law school in the 60's, 70's, and maybe the 80's, before there even was an internet.
All IMHO, of course.  | | |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | reply to Jason Levine
said by Jason Levine:What AT&T is going to do, however, is put systems in place to stop copyright violations. Now, we all know that these systems won't be fool proof. You can't possibly stop all violations. (This post, for example, is copyrighted. Will AT&T stop it if this post appears, completely intact, on a blog?) However, by making the effort, they lose their Common Carrier status and open themselves up to litigation when their filters fail. If I find out that a user on AT&T downloaded a work of mine without properly paying for it (assuming I wasn't giving it away for free), I might now be able to sue AT&T for aiding the pirates. Same if that person was sharing the work on a P2P group and AT&T didn't stop them. It's opening a huge legal liability. I'm surprised that their lawyers aren't going into seizures just thinking about it. Nope, they will have congress, or a judge provide an interpretation saying only "industry representive bodies" can sue ISPs for failures in filtering, same way we can't sue spammers, only ISPs. | |
| reply to PolarBear03
said by PolarBear03:said by Jason Levine:It's opening a huge legal liability. I'm surprised that their lawyers aren't going into seizures just thinking about it. I think the only reason they aren't is because they have the same problem the RIAA lawyers do: they are old, old-fashioned lawyers that simply don't grasp all the concepts of today's technology. AT&T and the RIAA's lawyers are not network admins, plain and simple. They're a bunch of old farts that went to law school in the 60's, 70's, and maybe the 80's, before there even was an internet. All IMHO, of course. NO, they are not! The one of the hottest legal specialties among law school grads these days is intellectual property law. These sharklets can smell blood in the water with unerring, and ruthless efficiency. I liken them to real estate foreclosure vultures specialists, and corporate raiders arbitrageurs for compassionate ethicism. | |
Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to Jason Levine
said by Jason Levine:The Common Carrier status is basically a legal shield that recognizes that the dumb pipe provider can't filter out everything so they're not liable for anything. It's the same concept that keeps Verizon from being liable if two criminals use Verizon cell phones to plot a robbery. Correct. That is what it says. But Tim Wu asserts that blocking illegal content breaks that law. I think that's specious at best.
quote:
What AT&T is going to do, however, is put systems in place to stop copyright violations. Now, we all know that these systems won't be fool proof. You can't possibly stop all violations. (This post, for example, is copyrighted. Will AT&T stop it if this post appears, completely intact, on a blog?) However, by making the effort, they lose their Common Carrier status
You are simply asserting that they lose their Common Carrier status without anything to back that up. See my original post for my view of that. I think it's a complete stretch which would not stand up to any reasonable scrutiny by a judge. It's just an anti-AT&T bigot fulminating.
quote:
and open themselves up to litigation when their filters fail.
If I find out that a user on AT&T downloaded a work of mine without properly paying for it (assuming I wasn't giving it away for free), I might now be able to sue AT&T for aiding the pirates. Same if that person was sharing the work on a P2P group and AT&T didn't stop them.
It's opening a huge legal liability. I'm surprised that their lawyers aren't going into seizures just thinking about it.
This is going off on a completely different tangent. The original article says nothing about this. And, I think your argument doesn't hold a single drop of water. Unless AT&T makes some warranty that they will stop all copyrighted material from being transmitted (which of course they won't do), you don't have any grounds to win a lawsuit. In fact they would do exactly the opposite -- in their terms and conditions they would specifically state they do NOT protect users from anything. | |
|
