NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad

NNSquad Home Page

NNSquad Mailing List Information


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[ NNSquad ] Re: Comments on NNSquad Purpose

Hash: SHA1

In message <200711111536.33108.rtellason@verizon.net>, Roy J. Tellason
<rtellason@verizon.net> writes

>On Sunday 11 November 2007 12:46, Robb Topolski wrote:
>> I reject, wholesale, that the ISP has to play 'censor' for the end-users.
>> That doesn't work.  I might create copyrightable content, or might have
>> rights to access under "fair-use" or other exceptions, or I might have
>> explicit permission to access or distribute the material (in my case, all
>> of the above have been true). The ISP cannot and should not know what I am
>> entitled to download or upload as I do it.
>I recall an article or two in Boardwatch magazine back when,  that discussed 
>this very issue.  Basically there were two approaches taken to things,  and 
>both had come to court cases.  One was _Compuserve vs. Cubby_,  

Caution is required with this, and the later case Stratton Oakmont v
Prodigy (where finding old web pages or indeed looking at Wikipedia will
confuse, since the initial 1995 decision was overturned on appeal in 99)

The reason for the caution is that the current US legal framework is the
1996 CDA (the bits that weren't struck out as unconstitutional!) which
gives quite extensive protections to ISPs.

Of course this just one jurisdiction's approach, Europe has a related
but different scheme under the ECommerce Directive...

>I can't 
>recall the name of the other one offhand.  One of these days I should 
>probably dig out that old magazine and get some more details...

You'd do better looking at the s230 of the CDA, and Zeran v AOL


- -- 
Richard Clayton                          <richard.clayton @ cl.cam.ac.uk>
                    Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge, CB3 0FD

Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1