On 2011-07-27 4:57 AM, [email protected] wrote:
As with all discussions concerning law and the internet, jurisdiction is
also very important. "Common carrier" is a US concept which grew out of
English law, but is no longer really used in England. The European
equivalent, which I think is called a public carrier, also has
significant differences from the US common carrier. The Wikipedia page
on this topic is actually quite a good start in this case:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Common_carrier
It's also worth remembering that the interactions between ISPs, hosting
providers, service operators and users, combined with the relatively
recent appearance of the internet (from the perspective of legislation)
make this very complex and largely untried.
IANAL, but I observe that existing practice tends to favor the host.
The complainant is supposed to contact the offender first, if possible,
and if that fails, perhaps because the offender is anonymous, contact
the host. The host is supposed to then respond in a timely fashion
provided that the complaint is specific and concrete. If the host
responds appropriately to that specific incident, the host has covered
its ass, even if users keep re-offending.
That is specifically laid down in US copyright law, but whether by
precedent, or just because it is sensible, seems to shape actual
practice everywhere and in all matters.
On the other hand, actual practice also seems to be that there is one
law for people who have a lawyer who went to certain schools and
belonged to right societies, and a different law for people who do not.
_______________________________________________
tahoe-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://tahoe-lafs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tahoe-dev
