Slashdot Mirror
Important Court Decisions Chip Away At ISP Liability Shield
An anonymous reader writes "News.com is reporting on a pair of court cases that could prove very important to ISPs in coming years. They both subtly chip away at the legal shield service providers have enjoyed against liability for hosted content. Further court cases could result in a 'chilling effect' on social networks and hosting services, as small businesses steer clear of potentially contentious content. '[The judge's ruling] differed from previous opinions in one important area. He refused to dismiss Jane Doe's argument that FriendFinder's republication of her profile invaded her 'intellectual property rights' under New Hampshire law. She claimed to be concerned about violations to her 'right of publicity,' which says an individual generally has the right to control how his name, image, and likeness is used commercially--and the court ruled that Doe's argument fell into the category of intellectual property law.'"
Trademark? I have a trademark on my name? I thought you had to register a trademark, and defend it. How that applies to a persons name, I don't know.
Patent? I have a patent on my name? What is there that could even be patented?
Defamation? That is probably the correct law they are breaking, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with any of the "IP" laws.
Just using "IP" confuses the issue, please stop using it. They are Copyright, Trademark, and Patent, and they vary greatly. Don't squish them together.
Or can I call the case of a computer the "CPU", and talk about the "storage" in my CPU?
If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
As a side note, I recall when /. was forced to remove a comment that posted some Scientology documents. I thought that was a terrible thing to do, as a DMCA violation request, because it might pave the way for other people to strong arm negative things about them off of forums (kept wanting to type fora) and message boards. Thankfully I haven't witnessed anything like it here on /. since. Maybe this ruling will be appealed and be struck down. Here's hoping at least.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
I don't think this is as bad for ISP's as it's portrayed. These rulings strengthen the individual's ability to control their information, I applaud this! There are simply too many folks trading in my personal information without my consent. While it may seem chilling to shrink the ISP's shield immunity, it's really about leveling the playing field as far as Copyright and IP goes. I don't think the ISP's really had that big a shield to hide behind anyway, the only reason they're not getting sued by the RIAA/MPAA is because they're really the same company. In addition, they've shown that they'll roll-over for just about any junior lawyer wannabe that sends them a writ on some toilet-paper. Want a search warrent? No problem... You're sending over a "take-down" notice? Sure, we'll do that without even investigating....
With such a ruling, an individual could sue to stop all of the "information scrapers" that collect and associate telephone numbers with credit card and demographic information. Wanna see what I mean? Try http://www.intelius.com/ These folks assemble information about you and publish these results by collecting bits from your credit card transactions, legal documents, renter's records, any place they can get their hands on. By upholding your right to control this information, through the "publicity" angle, they're giving you economic control over your information! This is good, anything that allows you to control how your private, copyrighted personal information is spread is good for you.
If anyone's going to trade information about me (i.e. what shows I watch, what books I read, what demographic group I belong to, etc.) I want to make money off it too. I demand my cut, just like the RIAA/MPAA demands their cut.
I disagree with your view on the Roommates.com. They aren't a lender or directly involved in you finding a place to live. If I choose to take on a roommate, why should HAVE to consider on that is gay, if that would make me uncomfortable? Why should I have to consider a woman if that would make me uncomfortable?
Roommates.com isn't offering you housing; its a networking site, no different than putting an ad for a roommate in the paper. Are you saying that a single woman can't rule out living with a man when searching for a roommate? What about if that woman doesn't want to live with a lesbian? Yes, the latter might be from an unreasonable fear, but I don't see why someone should be forced into an uncomfortable situtation.
Well, that is the law.
Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
I actually believe what it is saying is that there was a sexually explicit profile(s) created that included her picture which inferred that they were actually HER profiles when they weren't.
Like if i made a myspace page (god, help me) that talked about what a lunatic i was, and then used a picture of you as the display pic. It could reasonably be believed that you were the one who was nuts.