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.'"

Comments

What about the fact they are scanning the stream?

[LiquidCoooled]

How can they hide behind a shield of common carrier with one hand and then start scanning content with the other?

Its not just liability for hosted content, but downloaded content as well.
If they want to stop us downloading illicit music, they should prevent us from downloading ALL illegal material as well or else face the wrath of the parents.

Which IP? Defamation != IP

[corsec67]

Copyright? I have a copyright on my name? Can I sue anyone that violates that copyright? I thought you couldn't copyright a fact.

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?

This is actually good for privacy..

[Dr_Marvin_Monroe]

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.

Re:They don't.

[torstenvl]

The difficulty of the case is that Jane Doe also filed suit that her "rights of publicity" were being violated. Which is a far more nebulous concept than IP Rights. No. Rights of publicity are intellectual property rights. [1][2][3]

Where things get really confusing, though, is that the article suggest that Jane Doe's "rights of publicity" arguments were denied. No, the article explicitly says they werent. [4]

Instead, the judge is treating it as a pure IP violation case. Which seems only right and proper in my mind. Yes, because publicity rights are intellectual property rights. [1][2][3]

Yet the article appears to be suggesting that this would set a rather negative precedent across the industry. Which makes very little sense to me. Perhaps someone more in the know could shed some light on the exact problem? (Or if one even exists?) The author (and the OP) are just being sensationalist. The "immunity shield"[5] is inapplicable to intellectual property claims[6], and has been inapplicable to them since it was passed in 1996.

Nothing to see here, move along.

[1] ETW Corp. v. Jireh Publ'g, Inc., 332 F.3d 915, 928 (6th Cir. 2003)
[2] J. Thomas McCarthy, Melville B. Nimmer & the Rights of Publicity: A Tribute, 34 U.C.L.A. L.Rev. 1703, 1712 (1987)
[3] Black's Law Dictionary 368 (3rd pocket ed. 2006)
[4] Anne Broache, Courts chip away at Web sites' decade-old legal shield, C|Net News.com News Blog, April 8, 2008 at paragraph 9, available at http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9911501-7.html
[5] 47 U.S.C. s 230(c)(1)
[6] 47 U.S.C. s 230(e)(2)