[tahoe-dev] The Liability Question.

[James A. Donald]

On 2011-07-27 4:57 AM, joss-tahoedev at pseudonymity.net 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.