Slashdot Mirror
Steffi Graf Wins Case Vs. Microsoft
scaramush writes: "The AP is reporting that Steffi Graf has won her lawsuit against Microsoft for hosting nude doctored photos of her. Although Microsoft had removed the images when they appeared in June, MS declined to sign a formal agreement that they would not appear again. This is the second loss for MS in this case. Scary precedent."
Don't know what to think... Microsoft evil... yet... Microsoft right... too much... head pain...
*POP*
Microsoft, as an ISP, hosting someone's pictures, is successfully sued for hosting those images. The point is not that it's Microsoft, the point is that an ISP has lost the case. Although it's definitely of interest that even Microsoft is not immune to this sort of suit. This case is a set-back to ISPs everywhere.
Not to flog the dead horse, but it's more evidence of ways in which the private sector is quite happy to cramp civil liberties for its own purposes, using civil law.
This is a case in Germany, under German law, against the German division of Microsoft. From the article:
- "...Steffi Graf won a court case against Microsoft Germany..." (my emphasis)
Frightening though it may be, this isn't about any of the draconian US laws."...America's great minds of today, teaching America's great minds of tomorrow. Poor bastards." -- A Beautiful Min
This is a worst defeat for ISPs than you can consider *because* it goes against a big giant like M$. And if M$.com can be liable, who knows what could happen to the mom-and-pop ISPs with the deep pockets or the legend of lawyers.
That loud SLAPPing sound in the background is getting closer.
Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
The set back here happened in Germany, which continues to bring into question the legitimacy of national courts in the international medium of the Internet. Micrsoft does business in Germany and will, of course, comply with the verdict to avoid pissing the Germans off. What if Microsoft had no direct dealings with Germany though?
Eventually a court case will come up in some major venue (the US, or a major eurpoean country I'd guess) that will be promptly ignored by the party involved because they don't operate under that country's jurisdiction. Then who knows what will happen.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Microsoft has a weak backhand.
Okay, who was the wise guy who posted this under "The Courts"? Ha ha.
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
In their old terms of use they claimed ownership of all contend they were hosting for you. So it became their property, and they were possibly making money of it.
If this is true, then this court case is absolutely on the money. We should give our German friends the benefit of the doubt.
MS can't have it both ways. I assume they demanded ownership of the content so that they could remove content they did not want posted - like anti-MS rants etc. However, when they were held responsible for the "property" they demanded, they tried to claim it was the website "owner's" responsibility.
This is not a frightening precedent at all, and it doesn't apply to any ISP with normal terms of service. MS just got exactly what it deserved.
I repeat - SHOULD NOT APPLY TO THE REST OF THE NET. Move along. Nothing to see here.
from what i remember i read about it there was an eula to access/post images/write stuff that you had to agree with before getting you login data.
it happens that in this eula there was a part that said something along the lines of "all content postet/written goes over into microsofts ownership".
so when the pics were postet microsoft got ownership and so microsoft was sued because hosting said pictures that they claimed ownership for through their eula.
the eula was changed shortly after.
so there.. read it up before coming up with german/nazi like acusations.
This is how you use this precedent to MAKE MONEY FAST from home, AND hurt big bad Microsoft to boot:
1. Find nudie pics on the internet. If you fail this, kill yourself immediately.
2. Put pictures of your own head on the naked bodies.
3. From an internet cafe, create an account with a fake name on Microsoft Germanies photo sharing/whatever site. Upload the pictures to this site.
4. Sue Microsoft Germany for posting fake nude images of you on the net. Tell them to sign a formal agreement that they will not appear again. If they won't, you get money. If they do sign, post the images again and sue them for breach of contact, and get money.
5. Repeat until rich.
I agree that there are parallel's to the Napster case, but I believe that this case is actually slightly worse (and, depending on your perspective, on the opposite side of right vs. wrong).
With Napster, they created a service that was intended, from day 1, for heavy trafficking in copyrighted material. From what I understand, Napster went as far as to advertise the prevalence of popular artists on their service. Such knowledge is a key part of charging them with indirect copyright infringement (either contributory or vicarious -- I'm not up to date on the details).
With Microsoft, on the other hand, they apparently had a service that was no different from your standard message board with image attachments turned on. While there's no mention in the article of the theme of the board, there's nothing to imply an intent to profit off the indirect sharing of libelous material. That makes them (arguably) more innocent.
So even if you disagree with whether or not Napster's intent (or alleged intent if you disagree on the intent itself) pushes them into the guilt zone, it seems that Microsoft was standing in a less ambiguous position when they got nabbed. And that really worries me, simply because it implies that a court decision has crossed the invisible line (at least in my own mind) the stands between "Oh well." and "Uh oh."
I'd like to opine that this is something that Microsoft richly deserves, and it likely won't be much of a precendent at all.
We've read several news stories about MSN's TOS that gives them ownership of everything on customers' web sites. We've read the stories about their lifting images from customers' web sites and using them in ads. Microsoft's attitude all along has been that they own everything on their machines.
So it's not at all odd that they should be held legally responsible for images that they claim to own.
Lawyers have been pointing out for some time that the way out of this is for ISPs to simply declare that they are merely "carriers" and aren't responsible for the contents of customers' files or communications. A century of precendent with services like the phone system supports the idea that a common carrier can't be made to police the communications over its lines. The communications are the property of the customers, not the company.
Similarly, the corporations (mostly governmental) that maintain the streets and highways aren't responsible for the legality of cargo carried by users' vehicles.
It's likely that the real outcome of this will be to stop Microsoft's attempts to claim ownership of everything produced by their customers. If they persist in making such claims, they will be held liable for the contents of their files, and will be forced to hire staff to examine each and every file on every customer's web site. This will be so expensive that they'll have to either give up the ISP business or declare that they don't own customers' files.
What we want is a situation where we can all put whatever we want on our web sites, and the ISPs can't interfere. Legality should be strictly between a site's owner and the local governments. We want the ISPs to keep their noses out of our content.
Microsoft has just had its nose slapped.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Its not the criminals fault, its the gun's
;^)
This is more of a gray area than people realize. Certainly, it's the criminal's *fault*, but there is a logical argument to restrict the enabling technology if the result of its use is particularly destructive.
For instance, if you wanted to carry a nuclear weapon in a backpack around NYC, you could theoretically use the same argument: so long as the radioactive material is properly shielded, there's no harm done to anyone unless you detonate the bomb. However, the consequences of you using it are catastrophic, so it's illegal for you to possess such a device (at least I sure hope it is!).
Now, gun control seems like such a divided issue because people are divided over the severity of what happens when they are used. Many people do actually choose to use weapons in harmful ways, and yes, it is THEIR fault. However, since you can't easily stop someone from shooting you if they already have a gun in their hand, the idea of gun control is to eliminate the risk by not giving you the opportunity.
Certainly, there are lots of arguments on both sides, including one of feasibility... supposedly there are more guns in the U.S. than there are people, and you aren't going to just tell people to turn them in and expect them to do it. That wouldn't work.
Getting back on topic, this article is kind of the same: force the ISP to check all content before it goes online. This prevents a malicious user from posting malicious content, but seems to put blame on the ISP, when we know it should be put on the user him/herself. Again, we need to assess the risk of damage caused by a malicious user, and compare it with the cost to all the non-malicious users.
Personally, I'm pulling for the free speech side here, but I'm just a silly Canadian, so don't mind me.
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
Microsoft was merely acting as ISP in this case.
This has been said many times in this article, so I'm not picking on you specifically. I just picked this post to respond to.
MS was *not* acting as an ISP in this situation. Do you see where you said "on the site operated by Microsoft". In this situation they were a hosting provider. The picture was posted on some MSN community or similar. No one said that whoever posted the picture used them to dial up to the internet.
Further MS claims in their terms that they own all of the content on the site. So they are the host of the material and further they claim to own it as well. This makes them the publisher. In this case MS's draconian license scheme backfired and they *are* liable. If they had some disclaimer like at the top of this page:
then they would *not* have been liable. Since they provide the web space *and* they feel that this entitles them to ownership of anything anyone else makes and posts there, they got screwed in this case.
This ruling does not actually apply to all forums. For instance, Slashdot would not be affected. The court's explanation (google translation) clearly states that the decision was based on the fact that Microsoft has "acquired" the posted information by closely integrating it into their site and, more importantly, by claiming rights to it.