Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> thus has not been subject to common carrier regulations"

Technically, then, they're responsible for what is sent over their cables, 
not unlike a television station can get fined for showing porn during prime 
time.  Or the RIAA could sue them for allowing downloads of copyrighted 
material and contributory infringement.

That said, I wouldn't be surprised if the cable companies and such managed 
to get laws making them neither common carriers nor responsible for the 
information they serve.

> 	I'm not 100% sure. I would think I'm required to take it down only if
> notified of its presence. IOW, I don't think there's any law that states
> that I _have_ to actively monitor what goes on on my Web site. Not sure,
> though.

No, there isn't. But if you *do* monitor it, you're responsible for it.

In this case, the ISP is saying "we *do* monitor where you go, and actively 
police that."  Hence, they're responsible for the content they deliver. You 
can't say "we watch everywhere you go, and block some legal sites for 
financial purposes, but we take no responsibility for blocking illegal 
sites."  IANAL still, but I did spend a year or so making sure the porn on 
the company's web server didn't leak out to the pages before you proved your 
age, so I spent a fair amount of time with the lawyers discussing it. If you 
filter the content, you're taking responsibility for being an "information 
service", and the information you serve needs to be legal.

I.e., it's the Pirate Bay defense: "we never looked at what we were serving, 
so you can't blame us for what the users put there."

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message