Posts Tagged ‘Internet service provider’
February 4, 2013
Catherine R. Gellis (Digital Age Defense) has published “2012 State of the Law Regarding Internet Intermediary Liability for User-Generated Content“, Business Lawyer, Vol. 68, No. 1, 2012 which contains a summary of key cases regarding 47 U.S.C. Section 230 and 17 U.S.C. Section 512.
Like this:
Like Loading...
Tags:Blog, Communications Decency Act, Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Internet service provider, Law, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, United States, User-generated content
Posted in 17 U.S.C. Section 512, 47 U.S.C. Section 230, blawging, Blawgosphere, blawgs, blog, communications, hyperlinking, intermediaries, intermediary liability, internet, internet defamation, internet jurisdiction, internet law, Internet Service Providers, Online Defamation, Section 230, user-generated content, website | Leave a Comment »
February 9, 2012
Image via Wikipedia
In Reference re Broadcasting Act, 2012 SCC 4, the Supreme Court of Canada today affirmed the Federal Court of Appeal ruling that retail Internet Service Providers (“ISPs”) do not carry on, in whole or in part, “broadcasting undertakings” subject to the Broadcasting Act when, in their role as ISPs, they provide access through the Internet to “broadcasting” requested by end‑users. (more…)
Like this:
Like Loading...
Tags:Bell Canada, Canada, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, CRTC, Federal Court of Appeal, Internet service provider, Supreme Court, Telecommunications Act
Posted in Broadcasting Act, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, CRTC, federal courts, internet, internet law, Internet Service Providers, ISP, media, Supreme Court of Canada | 1 Comment »
November 30, 2011
Image via Wikipedia
Over at Inforrm’s Blog, Gervase de Wilde comments on the recent UK High Court decision of HHJ Parkes QC in Davison v Habeeb ([2011] EWHC 3031 (QB)) dated 25 November 2011 [“Davison”] involving online intermediary liability and jurisdictional issues in UK defamation actions.
In this post, I will briefly address the broader implications of online regulation and intermediary liability. (more…)
Like this:
Like Loading...
Tags:Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Google, Internet service provider, Senate, Stop Online Piracy Act
Posted in blawging, Blawgosphere, blawgs, blog, cyberlaw, cyberlibel, cyberslapp, cybersmear, cyberspace, defamation, Defamation Act 2011, Defamation Law, free speech, Freedom of expression, freedom of speech, intermediaries, International, internet, internet defamation, internet jurisdiction, internet law, Internet Service Providers | 2 Comments »
November 9, 2011
Felix T. Wu (Yeshiva University – Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law) has posted “Collateral Censorship and the Limits of Intermediary Immunity”, Notre Dame Law Review, Vol. 87, p. 101, 2011/Cardozo Legal Studies Research Paper. Here is the abstract:
The law often limits the liability of an intermediary for the speech it carries. And rightly so, because imposing liability on intermediaries can induce them to filter out questionable content and this “collateral censorship” risks suppressing much lawful, even highly beneficial, speech. The “collateral censorship” rationale has its limits, though, and correspondingly, so should the applicability of intermediary immunity. The worry with collateral censorship is not just that intermediaries censor, but that they censor more than an original speaker would in the face of potential liability. Increased censorship, in turn, is the product of applying liability targeted at original speakers to entities whose interests diverge from original speakers. Where the “intermediary” has the interests of an original speaker, and so should be regarded as one, or where the form of liability already takes into account the intermediary’s interests, collateral censorship is not the problem, and immunity is not the right response. This understanding should, in particular, inform the interpretation of section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, a federal statute that broadly immunizes Internet intermediaries from speech torts and many other forms of liability. In cases involving the republication of e-mails, questionnaires, member screening, and contract claims, among others, courts have begun to explore the limits of this immunity, but have done so haphazardly and inconsistently, having largely lost sight of the underlying rationale for immunity. Focusing on the conditions that generate problematic collateral censorship provides a principled basis upon which to define the limits of intermediary immunity generally, and section 230 in particular.
A copy of the article may be downloaded from SSRN here.
Related articles
Like this:
Like Loading...
Tags:Censorship, Communication Decency Act, Intermediary, Internet service provider, Law, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act
Posted in cyberlaw, cyberlibel, defamation, Defamation Law, free speech, Freedom of expression, freedom of speech, intermediaries, internet, internet defamation, internet law, Internet Service Providers, Section 230 | 1 Comment »
October 31, 2011
Image by wwarby via Flickr
Just in time for Hallowe’en, here are some scary tales about the impending death of internet freedom and personal privacy: (more…)
Like this:
Like Loading...
Tags:Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Google, Internet service provider, IP address, Jacob Appelbaum, Twitter, WikiLeaks
Posted in copyright, democracy, internet, internet law, Internet Service Providers, Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, privacy | 1 Comment »
Catherine R. Gellis (Digital Age Defense) has published “2012 State of the Law Regarding Internet Intermediary Liability for User-Generated Content“, Business Lawyer, Vol. 68, No. 1, 2012 which contains a summary of key cases regarding 47 U.S.C. Section 230 and 17 U.S.C. Section 512.
Antonin I. Pribetic
