Slashdot Mirror
Who Is An ISP?
happynut writes "Last Friday there was an article about the new anti-spam U.S. legislation that might become law.
Within this bill, the only non-government party that can sue for damages is an 'Internet Access Service' (Page 44, line 1 (Sec 7(g)), and Page 8 line 15 (Sec 3(11)) of
the bill). Some reports have treated 'Internet Access Service' as the same as
an ISP. But if you follow down the definition listed in Sec 3(11)
(see
47 USC Sec 231(e)(4)), it defines an Internet Access Service as: '(4) Internet access service --
The term 'Internet access service' means a service that enables users to access content, information, electronic mail, or
other services offered over the Internet, and may also include
access to proprietary content, information, and other services as
part of a package of services offered to consumers. Such term
does not include telecommunications services.'
My question is: isn't this definition so broad as to cover all of us who run
a mail server? It doesn't mention commercial, or for money, or to the public;
it just says 'as part of a package of services offered to consumers.'"
So if I'm running Kazaa, can I be legally declaired an ISP. And thus, be sued directly?
Life is not for the lazy.
The way I read it, this would cover a home page as well, as it offers customers (family) access to information (your pictures of the kids, blogs, whatever). Does this make sense to anyone else?
No matter where you go, there you are. So Enjoy it.
as part of a package of services offered to consumers.
It doesn't mention commercial, or for money, or to the public; it just says 'as part of a package of services offered to consumers.'
Consumers = the public in this case.
Internet access packages = typically non-free.
Selling it on any appreciable scale = often commercial.
I believe these are the interpretations they're aiming for, and the ones that will be upheld should they ever be taken to task.
The coolest voice ever.
I RTFA but i'm not sure if I qualify. I supply a cable modem connection to 12 students in rental rooms. If I use a switch and charge a monthly rate, does this make me an ISP. Does there have to be a server involved? Does reselling access count?
Stay tuned for new sig...
Yes, where the definition will probably turn on whether "consumers" include noncommercial clients.
Granted, I still haven't even been able to find the full text of the bill anywhere in order to verify this.
Do you really need reason for beer? Wingman Brewers
I think Napster would have liked the definition offered. If memory serves me correctly, they tried to define themselves as an ISP to use the safe harbor clause of the DMCA...and it didn't hold up in a court room.
Ron Paul
I think the "does not include telecommunications" bit, along with the list of things is worded in order to exclude organizations that merely provide the bandwidth or physical connection.
The rewording in the grandparent is inaccurate. Removing the list changes the meaning dramatically from "providers of content services" (or something like that) to "providers of connections".
The non-Gov't entities that are allowed to sue spammers under this law are those that provide the higher level services (email, web, etc) that run on the Internet, rather than those that actually run the Internet itself.
In other words, SBC can't sue spammers over the amount of data sent over their wires (ie. SBC acting as a telecom), though they could sue over spam being sent to @sbcglobal.net users (ie. SBC acting as an ISP).
blog
He MAY have meant that his woody box allows HIM to access the internet, just as mine does. Also most ISPs now accept multiple users per houshold and will even supply a router to help you do that if you wish. Some people use a Linux box to do the NAT function as well. Nothing wrong with that.
You don't have to be a business to generate spam. All you need is a single mail server.
Are you arguing that your right to operate a personal mail server trumps my right not to receive spam?
Well, maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong.
So, welcome to the land of politics and the courts. That's how things work around here. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. Living in a democracy obliges you to accept the outcome, or keep on fighting for what you believe in and be willing to accept the consequences.
The alternative is to anoint someone to decide what's right and wrong. I don't like that option.
As James Madison argued, the U.S. Constitution is a means to balance conflicting interests to the benefit of the most people most of the time. It isn't a means to determine moral correctness.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Clearly SpamCop is a service provider. No problem there.
Services like Spamcop see many copies of the same spam, so they can aggregate them up to the $1 million limitation. They see enough addresses that they can detect dictionary attacks (an "aggrivated offense"). If they use spam trap addresses, they can detect mining, another aggrevated offense.
Because SpamCop routinely informs spammers that they're spammers, they can even meet the high standard under the "special definition of procure" that places liability on advertisers only if they have "actual knowlege, or by consciously avoiding knowing,whether such person is engaging [in spamming]".
But none of this will stop the coming flood of "legitimate" spam. That, though, can be automatically filtered.
So what we need now is a service like SpamCop that sues spammers aggressively.