Important Court Decisions Chip Away At ISP Liability Shield 103
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.'"
Which IP? Defamation != IP (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:Yes and no (Score:3, Insightful)
This is actually good for privacy.. (Score:5, Insightful)
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/ [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:Which IP? Defamation != IP (Score:4, Insightful)
If I make a product that can be absolutely linked to you (even falsely) and it's a good product, you probably wouldn't mind too much. But if I make a product linked to you that would drag your face through the mud, you might be a bit upset.
There is no patent or trade mark on your user ID. And I don't imagine the
Defamation would be harder to argue as she would actually have to prove damages.
-Rick
Re:Yes and no (Score:3, Insightful)
Roommates.com isn't offering you housing; its a networking site, no different than putting an ad for a roommate in the paper. Are you saying that a single woman can't rule out living with a man when searching for a roommate? What about if that woman doesn't want to live with a lesbian? Yes, the latter might be from an unreasonable fear, but I don't see why someone should be forced into an uncomfortable situtation.
Re:Yes and no (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, that is the law.
Re:I'm confused... (Score:3, Insightful)
Like if i made a myspace page (god, help me) that talked about what a lunatic i was, and then used a picture of you as the display pic. It could reasonably be believed that you were the one who was nuts.