SatMedic
June 22nd, 2001, 04:38 PM
http://www.dr7.com/
Are You Responsible for What People Say on Your Site?
(June 21, 2001) One week ago, on June 13, 2001, TechTV interviewed Mr. Masato Hayakawa, an Attorney-at-Law with Morrison & Foerster LLP, San Francisco. The topic was Are You Responsible for What People Say on Your Site?
That presentation has created for me, and should instill in others, a true concern for the implications of law and recent reinterpretation of the culpability for Members of any discussion groups.
In this interview Mr. Hayakawa discussed the liability of forums, chatrooms and its members, for the material discussed on their sites. He indicated that such websites may violate intellectual property laws.
This implies that any site, and its individual members, can be held liable for what they post, create or publicly discuss. Immunity under the Communications Decency Act (CDA) may not apply to a site and its Members.
My attorney became concerned with this interpretation, and he recommended that I close DR7.com. After lengthy discussion and consideration of alternatives, yesterday I began the closing DR7.com.
Closing of DR7.com and Appreciation:
As DR7.com closes, I wanted to express my appreciation and admiration for members and friends who have been with me this past six years. From them I have learned a great deal about technology, and I shall sorely miss my online interactions all of you. From those who were unable to enjoy the site, I also learned a great deal about life itself and how badly they needed to find one of their own.
If you are due a membership refund, please contact I-Bill.com, or if you used Web900, please contact your telephone carrier.
Rational Thought:
I fully realize, anticipate and understand that while there will be support, there will also be broad discussion, cynicism, skepticism, criticism and speculation regarding this decision.
You may find many of these interpretations to be intriguing, exciting, provocative or even absurd, but they will certainly be entertaining. There will be theories of conspiracy, deal making, buy-outs and specious data presented as "fact." We have all read them in the past with amusement...and sometimes amazement.
Adventurous fiction always attracts more interest than mundane fact. If, however, you read the following, you will be better informed, and you will understand why I have reached this decision.
The Law:
This is the substance of Mr. Hayakawa's discussion and its implications:
In 1996, Congress enacted the Communications Decency Act (CDA). Section, 47 U.S.C. §230(c)(1), which reads in part:
Treatment of publisher or speaker:
Under the CDA, the operator of an online message board would not be treated as a publisher or speaker of defamatory comments posted by another person. Thus, they should be immune from liability for publication -- or speech-based claims such as defamation.
However, operators of interactive computer services are not immune from violations of intellectual property laws or criminal laws. So, while message board operators may (see below) have immunity against defamation claims based on a libelous statement by a user, they would not have immunity against a copyright or other intellectual property claim if that same user instead posted pirated songs, software or tools and information which violates intellectual property protection.
Also, in jurisdictions outside the United States, particularly in Europe, recent legal developments indicate that operators of message boards may not be immune and may actually be liable for defamatory comments made by others that are posted on their system
The DMCA:
On October 12, 1998, the U.S. Congress passed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act:
Highlights Generally:
Makes it a crime to circumvent anti-piracy measures built into most commercial software.
Outlaws the manufacture, sale, or distribution of code-cracking devices used to illegally copy software.
Does permit the cracking of copyright protection devices, however, to conduct encryption research, assess product interoperability, and test computer security systems.
Provides exemptions from anti-circumvention provisions for nonprofit libraries, archives, and educational institutions under certain circumstances.
In general, limits Internet service providers from copyright infringement liability for simply transmitting information over the Internet.
Service providers, however, are expected to remove material from users' web sites that appears to constitute copyright infringement.
Case in Point:
(As an example) U. S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan issued a preliminary injunction ordering Corley to remove the "DeCSS" software from his Web site, finding that publishing the software likely violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) of 1998. Under the act, it is illegal for anyone to provide to the public or traffic in a device designed to bypass encrypted copyright-protected work. DeCSS reverses the effects of the Content Scramble System (CSS) used to encrypt many DVD discs.
Corley complied with the injunction and removed the DeCSS code. But he then linked to more than 300 other sites where the program was available, and encouraged others to link to these sites as well. The MPAA asserts that by adding links to other sites, Corley subverted the intent of the injunction, and that the links he created on the 2600.com Web site also violate the DMCA.
Everyone interacting in internet bulletin boards needs to consider these rulings, actions and implications. For me personally, my decision became clear.
Again, my appreciation to loyal friends and members and know that we shall see each other soon. In the interim, I wish the best to all of you.
- Allen Menard, formerly DR7
Are You Responsible for What People Say on Your Site?
(June 21, 2001) One week ago, on June 13, 2001, TechTV interviewed Mr. Masato Hayakawa, an Attorney-at-Law with Morrison & Foerster LLP, San Francisco. The topic was Are You Responsible for What People Say on Your Site?
That presentation has created for me, and should instill in others, a true concern for the implications of law and recent reinterpretation of the culpability for Members of any discussion groups.
In this interview Mr. Hayakawa discussed the liability of forums, chatrooms and its members, for the material discussed on their sites. He indicated that such websites may violate intellectual property laws.
This implies that any site, and its individual members, can be held liable for what they post, create or publicly discuss. Immunity under the Communications Decency Act (CDA) may not apply to a site and its Members.
My attorney became concerned with this interpretation, and he recommended that I close DR7.com. After lengthy discussion and consideration of alternatives, yesterday I began the closing DR7.com.
Closing of DR7.com and Appreciation:
As DR7.com closes, I wanted to express my appreciation and admiration for members and friends who have been with me this past six years. From them I have learned a great deal about technology, and I shall sorely miss my online interactions all of you. From those who were unable to enjoy the site, I also learned a great deal about life itself and how badly they needed to find one of their own.
If you are due a membership refund, please contact I-Bill.com, or if you used Web900, please contact your telephone carrier.
Rational Thought:
I fully realize, anticipate and understand that while there will be support, there will also be broad discussion, cynicism, skepticism, criticism and speculation regarding this decision.
You may find many of these interpretations to be intriguing, exciting, provocative or even absurd, but they will certainly be entertaining. There will be theories of conspiracy, deal making, buy-outs and specious data presented as "fact." We have all read them in the past with amusement...and sometimes amazement.
Adventurous fiction always attracts more interest than mundane fact. If, however, you read the following, you will be better informed, and you will understand why I have reached this decision.
The Law:
This is the substance of Mr. Hayakawa's discussion and its implications:
In 1996, Congress enacted the Communications Decency Act (CDA). Section, 47 U.S.C. §230(c)(1), which reads in part:
Treatment of publisher or speaker:
Under the CDA, the operator of an online message board would not be treated as a publisher or speaker of defamatory comments posted by another person. Thus, they should be immune from liability for publication -- or speech-based claims such as defamation.
However, operators of interactive computer services are not immune from violations of intellectual property laws or criminal laws. So, while message board operators may (see below) have immunity against defamation claims based on a libelous statement by a user, they would not have immunity against a copyright or other intellectual property claim if that same user instead posted pirated songs, software or tools and information which violates intellectual property protection.
Also, in jurisdictions outside the United States, particularly in Europe, recent legal developments indicate that operators of message boards may not be immune and may actually be liable for defamatory comments made by others that are posted on their system
The DMCA:
On October 12, 1998, the U.S. Congress passed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act:
Highlights Generally:
Makes it a crime to circumvent anti-piracy measures built into most commercial software.
Outlaws the manufacture, sale, or distribution of code-cracking devices used to illegally copy software.
Does permit the cracking of copyright protection devices, however, to conduct encryption research, assess product interoperability, and test computer security systems.
Provides exemptions from anti-circumvention provisions for nonprofit libraries, archives, and educational institutions under certain circumstances.
In general, limits Internet service providers from copyright infringement liability for simply transmitting information over the Internet.
Service providers, however, are expected to remove material from users' web sites that appears to constitute copyright infringement.
Case in Point:
(As an example) U. S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan issued a preliminary injunction ordering Corley to remove the "DeCSS" software from his Web site, finding that publishing the software likely violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) of 1998. Under the act, it is illegal for anyone to provide to the public or traffic in a device designed to bypass encrypted copyright-protected work. DeCSS reverses the effects of the Content Scramble System (CSS) used to encrypt many DVD discs.
Corley complied with the injunction and removed the DeCSS code. But he then linked to more than 300 other sites where the program was available, and encouraged others to link to these sites as well. The MPAA asserts that by adding links to other sites, Corley subverted the intent of the injunction, and that the links he created on the 2600.com Web site also violate the DMCA.
Everyone interacting in internet bulletin boards needs to consider these rulings, actions and implications. For me personally, my decision became clear.
Again, my appreciation to loyal friends and members and know that we shall see each other soon. In the interim, I wish the best to all of you.
- Allen Menard, formerly DR7