by
Andy Oram
April 23, 1999
The growth of Internet access depends partly on protecting ISPs from undue responsibility for the acts of other Internet users. For people interested in the current status of liability for ISPs, I can sum it up in three words: an unholy mess.
Many cases (as well as recent laws in the U.S. and Germany) show a welcome trend toward exonerating ISPs from liability for users’ acts, while requiring them to rectify certain problems (such as removing illegal content from their servers). But court precedent is mixed, as I’ll show in the following summary of cases in various countries. For each case I’ll suggest what it means for service and content providers, although I do not by any stretch of the imagination claim the legal expertise to argue from these cases.
For readers willing to sally through an article from a law journal, I recommend Hijack on the road to Xanadu by Alex Morrison, published by the Journal of Information, Law & Technology, which was useful to me in researching this Web page and provides extensive background about non-Internet precedents.
This well-known Web search engine was enhanced to do a specific kind of search for music recorded in the popular MP3 format. Large music publishers are trying to eliminate recordings in MP3 because it erects no technical barrier to making copies. The publishers claim enormous losses in profits from copying. On March 24, 1999, the Norwegian partner of Lycos was sued by an association of music publishers, the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry. An even more powerful group of publishers, the Recording Industry Association of America, has complained to Lycos and recently threatened to sue.
The Shetland Times put advertisements on their home page and provided links to its own articles on other pages. Another site linked directly to the articles, thus letting users bypass the Shetland Times page with the advertisements. The Shetland Times claimed that both linking in itself and the use of Shetland Times headlines (six to eight words in length) constituted infringement. The court ruled in its favor.
A case very similar to the Shetland Times case, and again one where the plaintiff (Ticketmaster) won.
Total News made links to news articles on other sites, as in the Shetland Times case, but went further by putting the articles in frames surrounded by ads chosen by Total News. Several news publishers sued, claiming that the frames gave the impression that the articles were actually created and owned by Total News. Even though the source of each article was clearly indicated on the Total News page, it made significant concessions when settling out of court. The most important concession is probably a new right to control linking, in which the news organizations grant “link licenses” to Total News.
Dennis Erlich is a former member and current critic of the Church of Scientology, who publicly posted parts of Church documents on its doctrines to a BBS called Clearwood Data Services. The Church reserves these documents for members, charges high fees for access to them, and considers them under copyright. In 1995, representatives of the Church (formally known as Religions Technology Center and Bridge Publications, Inc.) sued Erlich, the BBS, and the provider used by the BBS, Netcom. After several rulings in favor of the BBS and Netcom, the Church dropped its suit against them. Erlich, who claims that he has the right to publish the portions he posted as “fair use,” tells me that the suit against him goes to court May 4, but that its goals are greatly scaled down to seeking an injunction against using the material.
As with Dennis Erlich, Spaink posted internal materials and was sued for copyright infringement, along with the ISP whose server hosts the material, XS4ALL, and a number of other access providers. In February 1996 the Dutch court rejected the Scientologists’ claims against the providers and ordered it to pay their court costs (which it has not done). Spaink’s decision will be handed down soon.
George Frena operated a BBS where photos from Playboy Magazine appeared in 1993. Playboy sued him successfully for copyright infringement. It’s not clear whether the reason is that, as attorney Jonathan Band put it, “one of the rules of copyright is that Playboy and Disney always win,” or that the evidence proved Frena was aware of the existence of the material on his site.
This maker of video games sued a BBS under circumstances similar to those in Playboy v. Frena, and won.
This ISP was sued in 1997 after someone from the U.S. bearing no relationship to the ISP posted defamatory material about a scientist named Laurence Godfrey to a newsgroup carried around the world. Godfrey demanded three times that Demon remove the messages from its servers, but the ISP claimed that it had no control over what individuals posted. In March 1999, the court ruled in favor of Godfrey and found Demon liable for defamation. Demon is appealing the case.
A site named altern.org offered free Web pages to over 47,000 people. One of these users posted nude photos of a famous model, Estelle Hallyday, who sued the altern.org proprietor, Valentin Lacambre, for violating her privacy. In February 1999, a court ordered Lacambre to pay a large sum, basing the decision on the Web page’s lack of identification. (No one, however, had ever asked Lacambre to identify the person who put up the Web page.) This ruling, which also commanded Lacambre to ensure that the photos would never be put up again, led him to shut down all the Web pages.
When rumor-monger Matt Drudge published allegations that White House staffer Sidney Blumenthal had abused his wife, Blumenthal sued not only Drudge but America Online, which hosted Drudge’s site, for defamation. Even though America Online paid Drudge for each article, the court considered America Online a distributor (like a bookstore or newstand) rather than a publisher. Publishers can be sued for defamation, but not distributors. (On the other hand, both publishers and distributors can be sued for copyright infringement.) Ironically, the law that the court said protected America Online was a part of the Communications Decency Act that the Supreme Court had left standing.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Andy Oram is an editor at O’Reilly Media. This article represents his views only. It was originally published in the online magazine Web Review.