Slashdot Mirror
AOL Liable For User Content In Germany?
Sjsop writes, "CANOE reports that a German state court has ruled that America Online (AOL Germany, at any rate) is liable for the content of its servers, even where it has no control over that content. (The story is here.) Hit Box Software sued because AOL-G users were trading some of its copyrighted music files and won the case, even though AOL shut down the forums where the trading occurred as soon as they found out about it. This sounds like Bad News to me, especially if (as is likely to happen) it's applied to smaller ISP as well as AOL." I read a great comment the other day: What next, suing Home Depot for selling the lead pipe that killed Professor Plumb?
I am really, really tired of hearing about things like this. It seems like such a common-sense thing that you don't hold the provider liable! After all, libraries still shelve books containing information on explosives and guns-- should we hold them liable for acts of terrorism?
When lawn darts were decided to be so dangerous they should be taken off of the market, were toy stores sued? Nope. It was the makers of the lawn darts! If you post crap on the web, it should be your behind that gets sued, not your provider's. ESPECIALLY if they torpedoed your site as soon as they knew about it!
It seems that this is occuring with such frequency that there must be some fundamental viewpoint I'm missing. If the legal systems of various countries are ruling in this fashion, there must be at least a tiny argument for their side that I am missing. If anyone could provide this (so we can ponder and rebuff it) I would be very very grateful. I simply cannot think of any reason that this sort of ruling is morally or commonsensically defensible!!
I'm not sure the idea of common carrier status translates to German. In the US it is at least hoped that ISPs are common carriers. I don't believe it has been tried in court, yet. Please tell me if it has.
Interestingly, since AOL pulled the content, they were no longer common carriers. If an ISP monitors or censors their customer's content in any way, they endanger their common carrier status. I worked for an ISP that had a policy to not remove anything, even when asked by customers, for this reason. It was up to the customers to fight it out, bring legal action against eachother, etc. But, you better believe that the ISP helped the authorities in any way they could (assuming proper permits, etc), just like a phone company.
Even if you are told about an incident, offensive is in the eye of the beholder. Illegal is a different story. In my mind, this company should have gone to the authorities to prosecute those performing the illegal act. After the appropriate permits, warrants, etc. had been presented, AOL would have only been in trouble if it didn't help. Maybe I should start a country...
What next, suing Home Depot for selling the lead pipe that killed Mr. Boddy?
Naw, it'll never come to that. Home Depot will just require that all purchasers of lead pipes undergo psychological profiling prior to the sale. Eventually, there will be 5-day waiting periods and background checks prior to the sale of anything more harmful than mini-marhsmallows (buying the regular sized ones will require a check, since they're large enough to block someone's wind pipe).
This has nothing to do with AOL being American - that sort of legal racism is one thing that is not involved here.
The German government will eventually have to come up with a law defining ISP responsibility (as will the British govt); until then, this sort of stupidity can hit anywhere. No laws have been passed yet because the parliaments consist of people who do not have a clue in this area.
Sounds familiar?
Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
You're holding up the nation that started the century by tearing down the balance-of-power system that had given Europe a century of peace, then followed up with a full-blown episode of national psychosis, as "mature"?
This is a definition of "mature" with which I am unfamiliar.
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
If AOL (and other ISPs) suddenly withdrew from Germany, what would happen?
Maybe other countries would see that a law like this isn't such a great idea?
Now, where to start?
...unfortunately, if it goes through, it probably won't be handled very well.
ISP's cannot control what is on their servers, of course. Data simply moves around too fast for that, and their servers rely on too many external sources.
AOL, though, is different. The AOL system is totally senf-contained. In short, AOL can control what's on their internal servers (Web servers are another matter). This makes them unique among online providers. And should they be liable for their content? Perhaps. They should certainly be liable for their users, whom they actually can teach such things as Net etiquette but refuse to do so (again, another case where AOL's self-contained system makes this possible).
The problem with the ruling is, courts aren't quite that smart yet. They won't get that AOL is unique among online providers. They'll think that everyone can control their servers like AOL can. And this is the problem, because that's simply not true.
So in the end, I'm afraid I've got to favor letting AOL off the hook. Simply because if AOL loses, the precedent will be used where it doesn't apply by people who don't know any better.
While we're at it, sue God for giving us bodies, brains, eyes and vocal cords, which can all be misused! Darnit God be more careful next time!