ict law - liability of isps - assign. 1
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/3/2019 ICT LAW - Liability of ISPs - Assign. 1
1/16
LIABILITY OF INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS (ISPS);
SHOOTING THE MESSENGER
Submitted to Deidre English-Gosse of the University of Technology, Jamaica for
partial completion of the degree of Bachelor of Laws on the 7th
day of October 2011.
Student Name: Clifton Campbell
Student ID No.: 0904536
Course Name: Information and Communication Technology Law
Course Code: LLB3001
Lecturer/Tutor: Ms. Deidre English-Gosse
Assignment No.: 1
-
8/3/2019 ICT LAW - Liability of ISPs - Assign. 1
2/16
Liabi l i ty of Internet Service Providers ( ISPs) ; Shoot ing the Messenger
1
Clifton D. Campbell (0904536)
CONTENTS
Acknowledgments............................................................................................................... 2Abstract ............................................................................................................................... 2Table of Cases ..................................................................................................................... 3Table of Statutes ................................................................................................................. 3
Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 4Scope of the Liability That will be examined ..................................................................... 4Liability in regard to copyright infringement ..................................................................... 5Liability in regard to trademark infringement .................................................................... 8Liability for Defamation ..................................................................................................... 9Liability of ISP for Child Pornography ............................................................................ 12Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 13
References ......................................................................................................................... 15
-
8/3/2019 ICT LAW - Liability of ISPs - Assign. 1
3/16
Liabi l i ty of Internet Service Providers ( ISPs) ; Shoot ing the Messenger
2
Clifton D. Campbell (0904536)
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to express my sincerest thanks to a few persons who made the completion on this
assignment a possibility. Firstly, a big thank you to Samantha Gordon , a trusting and supporting
friend for her volunteering precious time to proofread this script and also for making valid
suggestions as to how to make it better. Thanks also to colleagues who have made suggestionsand contributed research material. Thanks to my loving family for their continued and invaluable
support.
ABSTRACT
Should Internet Service Providers (ISPs) be held liable for material they disseminate through
their servers? Discuss using decided cases.
-
8/3/2019 ICT LAW - Liability of ISPs - Assign. 1
4/16
Liabi l i ty of Internet Service Providers ( ISPs) ; Shoot ing the Messenger
3
Clifton D. Campbell (0904536)
TABLE OF CASES
A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc 239 F.3d 1004, 1013 (9th Cir. 2001)
Bunt v Tilley and other [2007] 1 WLR 1243 ;[2006]EWHC 407 (QB)
Cubby Inc v CompuServe Inc (1991) 776 F Supp 135 Doe v. America Online718 So 2d 385 (4th Cir., 1999
Godfrey v Demon Internet Ltd[2001 ] QB 201
Hit Bit Software GmbH v AOL Bertelsmann Online GmbH & Co. KG [2001] E.C.D.R. 18
Lunney v Prodigy Services Co (1998) 250 AD 2d
Playboy Enterprises v Frena 839 F. Supp. 1552 (M.D. Fla. 1993)
Religious Technology Center v Netcom 901 F. Supp. 1519 (D. Colo. 1995)
SEGA v Maphia 30 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1921 (1994)
Zeran v. America Online, Inc.,129 F.3d 327, 330 (4th Cir. 1997).
TABLE OF STATUTES
United States
Communications Decency Act, 1995 (CDA) (US)
Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DCMA), 1998
United Kingdom
Protection of Children Act, 1978
Defamation Act 1996
Jamaica
Trade Marks Act 2001
Copyright Act, 1993 (Jamaica)
Defamation Act
Libel and Slander Act
-
8/3/2019 ICT LAW - Liability of ISPs - Assign. 1
5/16
Liabi l i ty of Internet Service Providers ( ISPs) ; Shoot ing the Messenger
4
Clifton D. Campbell (0904536)
INTRODUCTION
Internet Service Providers commonly referred to ISPs, are in modern phraseology,
companies that allow users- both individuals and organizations - to access the internet in return
for a fee or charge.
1
In other words, they are the little colloquial road, which lead unto theinformation highway. In Jamaica According to the ICT paper as at 2011 there were 94 ISPs in
Jamaica (get the citation correct) Government of Jamaica; Information and Communication
Technology (ICT) Policy. Prepared by the IT Department Office of the PM. Published in March
2011. This is inclusive of Cable and Wireless Jamaica, J2 Ltd, Infochannel, Flow, inter alia.2
Some ISPs offer other services such as newsgroup, bulletin boards, chat rooms and other
downloading and uploading websites that often facilitates the commission of intellectual
property rights, defame characters as well as aid the commission of crimes such as child
pornography. When this is done, however, should they held liable for material they disseminate
that through their servers?
The contention is that the ISPs are merely the proverbial messengers or the colloquial
road that takes millions of organizations and individuals unto the information superhighway.
There are many who argue that as such they should escape liability for any crime or tort unless
they had knowledge or ought to have had knowledge of tort or crime. This would ensure that
there is a mental element, viz., mens rea involved. Unless this requirement is satisfied it is the
submission of the writer, which is supported by case law and statute from both United States of
America jurisdiction and the common law jurisdiction, that ISPs should not be liable activities of
their customers who breach copyright, trademark, post defamatory statements and post child
pornography, inter alia.
The aim of the author therefore is to illustrate to the audience, the current state of the law
through decided cases as well as to indicate the general direction that the law is likely to take in
the future.
SCOPE OF THE LIABILITY THAT WILL BE EXAMINED
This discourse will surround the liability of ISPs for the activities of their users and the
material they disseminate through their servers shall be examined under the following headings:
1What is an ISP? < http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-an-isp.htm> accessed 04 October 20112Internet Service Providers in Jamaica
-
8/3/2019 ICT LAW - Liability of ISPs - Assign. 1
6/16
Liabi l i ty of Internet Service Providers ( ISPs) ; Shoot ing the Messenger
5
Clifton D. Campbell (0904536)
1. liability in regards to copyright infringement;2. liability in regards to trademark infringement;3. liability in regards to defamation; and4. liability in regard s to Child Pornography.
LIABILITY IN REGARD TO COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
Under the Copyright Act 1993 of Jamaica (and the relevant legislation in other
jurisdiction) owners of copyrighted material be it songs, poems, books, inter alia, have five
exclusive rights given to them. One of these rights is to prohibit others from reproducing, viz.,
copying their work, displaying work in public, or distributing it. Any party who therefore
infringe any of these rights is guilty of copyright infringement according to s 31 of Copyright
Act of Jamaica.3
Clearly, therefore, where ISPs can be found liable personally and no question
of liability arises in situations where there are directly involved in copying copyright protected
material. For example where an ISP in Jamaica copys a bestselling novel and place in on a its
bulletin board or website. That is primary copyright infringement.
On the other hand, there is what is known as secondary copyright infringement which
exists where ISPs indirectly sell, deal or disseminate unlicensed copies of copyrighted materials
or in any other way facilitate by providing equipment such as server with the capability to
copying protected material that facilitates a primary infringement by one of its subscribers or
online users.4 The question that arises therefore is when can an ISP be liable under copyright
law for the materials made through its facilities? This is a very serious act as underthe
Copyright Act by a party can be held liable for infringement even if they only indirectly
particpate in the copying or distribution of a work. Under the concept of "contributory
infringement," a party may be guilty of copyright infringement when they cause or contribute to
the infringing conduct of another with knowledge of the other party's infringing activities. In
addition, under the concept of "vicariously liability," a person may be liable for the infringing
actions of another if the person has the right and ability to control the infringer's acts and
receives a direct financial benefit from the infringement. Vicarious liability can be established
without the defendant having actual knowledge of the infringer's activity. Under these two
3 The holder of copyright has a course of action laid out in Copyright Act s 32.-(1) An infringement of copyright shall be actionable at the suitof the copyright owner; and, subject to the provisions of this section, in any action for such an infringement all such relief by way of
damages, injunction, accounts or otherwise, shall be available to the plaint8 as is available in respect of the infringement of other proprietary
rights.4Kelly, J. X. ISP LiabilityOverview. JISC. 23 November 2007.
-
8/3/2019 ICT LAW - Liability of ISPs - Assign. 1
7/16
Liabi l i ty of Internet Service Providers ( ISPs) ; Shoot ing the Messenger
6
Clifton D. Campbell (0904536)
theories, it is possible for an ISP to be held liable for copyright infringement, even if the ISP was
not directly involved in making the infringing copy. This according to s 31 (7) and (8) of the
Jamaica Copyright Act Jamaica.
(7) Where copyright in a work is infringed by a public performance of the work or by the
playing or showing of the work in public by means of apparatus for playing sound recordings orshowing films or receiving visual images or sounds conveyed by electronic means, the persons
specified in subsection (8) are also liable for the infringement.
(8) The persons referred to in subsection (7) are-
(a) a person who supplied the apparatus or any substantial part of it, if when he supplied the
apparatus or part-
(i) he knew or had reason to believe that the apparatus was likely to be so used as to
infringe copyright; or
(c) a person who supplied a copy of a sound recording or film used to infringe copyright, if
when he supplied it he knew or had reason to believe that what he supplied or a copy made
directly or indirectly from it, was likely to be so used as to infringe copyright.
ILLUSTRATIVE CASES
Direct Liability of ISP for copyright infringement
Hit Bit Software GmbH v AOL Bertelsmann Online GmbH & Co. KG [2001] E.C.D.R. 18
In this European case decided in 2001 a Musik Sound Forum by America Online (AOL)
a well-known ISP made it possible for internet users to upload and download Midi files three of
which the claimant has copyright. The site forbade any copyright infringement and had voluntary
scouts that checked to ensure that the files uploaded were virus free. Claim brought for copyrightinfringement inter alia.
It was held that America Online (AOL) was directly infringing the copyright in the MIDI
files by providing a service which enabled such files to be downloaded without the consent of
their copyright owner and that if AOL provided illegal content on its sites, it would be liable for
further infringements in regard to that content even if it had no knowledge of them.
Playboy Enterprises v Frena 839 F. Supp. 1552 (M.D. Fla. 1993)
This case an even greater liability for bulletin board operators and ISPs. In this case a
BBS operator whose bulletin board contained copyrighted photographs owned by Playboy was
found liable of violating the right to display and publish the photographs. This was true even
though the BBS operator did not make the copies himself, and in fact was never proven to have
-
8/3/2019 ICT LAW - Liability of ISPs - Assign. 1
8/16
Liabi l i ty of Internet Service Providers ( ISPs) ; Shoot ing the Messenger
7
Clifton D. Campbell (0904536)
knowledge of their existence. In effect, this case held the BBS operator liable merely for
providing a means by which copies (made by others) could be distributed to the public.
If this logic were extended to ISPs in general, an ISP could be held liable for its members
activities on the ISPs web and newsgroup servers, even without knowledge of such activity.
However, it is unlikely that such a ruling would ever be made given the major impact such a
position would have on the expansion of and access to the Internet.
A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc 239 F.3d 1004, 1013 (9th Cir. 2001)
In the case ofA&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc. to be a direct infringement of copyright held
by the recording companies. The Court determined that, even though Napster was not charging
for its service and users were downloading the music for their personal use, the downloading was
not a "fair use" under the United States Copyright Act (107). It was found that "repeated and
exploitative copying of copyrighted works, even if the copies are not offered for sale, may
constitute commercial use."
Secondary Liability of ISP
Religious Technology Center v Netcom 901 F. Supp. 1519 (D. Colo. 1995).
In the seminal 1995 California case ofReligious Technology Center v Netcom the
potential liability of ISPs for the activities of others was thoroughly examined . The facts of the
case are that files comprising copyrighted materials owned by the Church of Scientology were
uploaded on a newsgroup server controlled by an ISP known as Netcom. The subscriber that
uploaded the files on the Internet actually utilized a local bulletin board service (BBS) that
provided Internet access through Netcom. After both the BBS and ISP declined to deny access
to the individual involved and declined to they remove all documents containing Church
materials from the servers they controlled, the case went to court.
The court found that neither the BBS nor Netcom had directly, personally or primarily
infringed the Church's copyrights, since neither party had taken any affirmative steps to cause the
copies to be made. Although the computer systems of both parties operated automatically to
receive and transmit the postings of subscribers, the court found that this is not enough to
establish a direct infringement claim.
The court also decided against the Churchs claim that Netcom and the BBS operators
were vicariously liable for the infringement of the copyrights as there was no evidence that there
-
8/3/2019 ICT LAW - Liability of ISPs - Assign. 1
9/16
Liabi l i ty of Internet Service Providers ( ISPs) ; Shoot ing the Messenger
8
Clifton D. Campbell (0904536)
was any direct monetary reward to either Netcom or the BBS for the posting of infringing
materials.
However, the Court found that Netcom may be liable to the Church under the theory of
contributory infringement by materially contributing to the infringement of the user. Although
the court recognized that there could be no liability even under the contributory infringement
theory unless Netcom knew of the infringement, the court stated that if Netcom knew or should
have know about the presence of the copyrighted materials on its server and failed to remove
them, that failure could amount to contributory infringement. The notice that the Church
provided to Netcom may have been enough for Netcom to be liable for its failure to act on that
notice. Unfortunately, before this final issue could be determined by the court, the parties
settled the lawsuit.
SEGA v Maphia 30 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1921 (1994); 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5266 (N.D. Cal. 1994)
Cases decided since Netcom have followed the Netcom court's analysis. For instance, a
bulletin board operator who knowingly allowed his users to upload and download copyrighted
SEGA games was determined not to be a direct infringer of SEGA's copyrights. However, since
the BBS operator knew about the copies, and developed a scheme to actively encourage the
uploading of such copies, he was found guilty under the theory ofcontributory infringement.
LIABILITY IN REGARD TO TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT
ISPs are liable for their own activities that constitute trademark infringement much in the
same way as they are for any copyright infringement they carry out. As a result, if an ISP such as
C & W Jamaica were to advertise their services under a trademark that is confusingly similar to
a mark of another party such as AOL CompuService, they would be exposed to charges of
trademark infringement contrary to Trade Marks Act 2001 of Jamaica. In addition, if an ISP's
own web page contained the trademarks of another, the ISP's use of those marks would be
analyzed like any other web page owner and they could be liable for the tort of passing off.
ISPs are in a slightly different position when one of their customers misuses a trademark
of another. Although a case like this has not yet been presided over by any court it is reasonable
to infer that in situation where an ISP is duly notified of a trademark infringement being carried
-
8/3/2019 ICT LAW - Liability of ISPs - Assign. 1
10/16
Liabi l i ty of Internet Service Providers ( ISPs) ; Shoot ing the Messenger
9
Clifton D. Campbell (0904536)
out by one of its customers and nevertheless fails to act on this notification , such an ISP may
very well face liability under the theory of contributory or vicarious trademark infringement.
Much like copyright infringement, contributory trademark or vicarious infringement liability
may exist where the ISP causes or contributes to the infringing conduct of another with
knowledge of the users infringing acts.
LIABILITY FOR DEFAMATION
Several years ago, the hottest legal issue relating to the Internet was defamation (a broad
term encompassing slander and libel). Evidence of this can be found in The Law of Defamation
and the Internetwhere it was stated that
There is . . . a line of authority arising out of intellectual property cases in the United
Kingdom to the effect that persons who procure the commission of torts are liable jointly andseverally with the principal tortfeasor, while persons who merely facilitate the commission of
such torts are not exposed to liability. It is possible that this line of authority might apply to
defamation law.5
Several factors make ISPs attractive defendants in defamation claims, many of which
relate to the costs associated with litigation. For example, the author of a defamatory statement
will often reside outside the jurisdiction of the plaintiff, whereas the ISP that carried the
statement does business in the plaintiff's jurisdiction.6
In this area, there are two noticeable decided cases that emanate from the United States of
America that have even influenced the decisions of English judges when they adjudicated over
similar cases two of which will also be explored below.
US Authorities
Lunney v Prodigy Services Co (1998) 250 AD 2d 230
In the Prodigy case, Prodigy was sued for defamation based upon the statements made by
one of its customers in a Prodigy bulletin board. In determining whether Prodigy was liable for
the defaming statements of its customer in this case, a New York state judge was left to
5 Matthew Collins, The Law of Defamation and the Internet(2nd edn Oxford University Press, Oxford 2005) paras 15.386 Michael Deturbide, 'Liability of Internet Service Providers for Defamation in the US and Britain: Same Competing Interests, Different
Responses', [2000] 3 The Journal of Information, Law and Technology (JILT) accessed 05
October 2011
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/elj/jilt/http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/elj/jilt/ -
8/3/2019 ICT LAW - Liability of ISPs - Assign. 1
11/16
Liabi l i ty of Internet Service Providers ( ISPs) ; Shoot ing the Messenger
10
Clifton D. Campbell (0904536)
determine whether Prodigy was a "distributor" of information, such as a bookstore or library, or
whether Prodigy was a "publisher" of information, such as a newspaper. As a mere distributor,
Prodigy would not be liable for the statement. In contrast, if Prodigy was considered a publisher
(with greater control over the information's content), Prodigy would be liable. In a decision that
shocked most on-line service providers, the judge held that, as a result of Prodigy's well-
publicized policies of monitoring and censoring its forums, Prodigy was a publisher and was
potentially liable for the defaming statement. Although the case was settled by the parties and
Prodigy moved for a withdrawal of the judge's decision, the judge refused.
Cubby Inc v CompuServe Inc (1991) 776 F Supp 135
In the CompuServe case, a similar factual situation was encountered by a federal court. In
this case, however, the court found that CompuServe acted merely as a distributor of information
in its discussion groups, and therefore was not liable. It is important to note that CompuServe
avoided liability because it did not know about the defaming statement, nor did it have any
reason to know about the statement. If a distributor knows about a defaming statement and
continues to distribute the information, liability is not so easily avoided.
Key Note
In analyzing these cases, most commentators noted the irony that Prodigy was more
likely to be liable for defamation because of the additional steps it took to control the content of
its discussion groups. CompuServe did not attempt to monitor and control its discussion groups
to the extent done by Prodigy, which made it easier for the CompuServe judge to find that
CompuServe was merely a distributor of information. This lead many attorneys to advise their
clients to avoid censoring such discussion groups, for fear of defamation liability. Such a hands-
off approach can only increase the likelihood that defamatory statements will be made in the
future.7
7
-
8/3/2019 ICT LAW - Liability of ISPs - Assign. 1
12/16
Liabi l i ty of Internet Service Providers ( ISPs) ; Shoot ing the Messenger
11
Clifton D. Campbell (0904536)
Common Law (UK) Authorities
Godfrey v Demon Internet Ltd[2001 ] QB 201
Godfrey was the first decision in the U.K In 1999 and it signaled that the U.K.
Defamation Act 1996 resulted in a different approach to ISP liability for defamatory statements
made by subscribers over their servers. Although the parties eventually settled their dispute, an
earlier motion that was filed by Godfrey to strike out parts of the ISP's defence led to the
judgment discussed herein.
The Defendant ISP, Demon Internet, operated a News group and stored its contents for
two weeks. The received one such article defaming the character of the plaintiff which was
posted by an unknown person utilizing another service provider. The Plaintiff requested that the
Defendant remove the offensive posting. It did not oblige, and the posting remained on its news
server for two weeks. There was no dispute that Demon could have removed the posting at
Godfrey's request so he sued for defamation.
In its defence the defendant argued that it was not, at common law, a 'publisher' of the
allegedly defamatory posting, and that even if it was, the defence ofs. 1 of the Defamation Act
1996 was available. The Plaintiff sought to strike out this part of Demon's defence pleadings, as
disclosing no sustainable defence.
Godfrey succeeded in his application. In its decision, the Court cited the Americanauthorities, but cautioned that 'Care has to be taken before American cases are applied in English
defamation cases'.
The Court held that Demon was not the publisher of the defamatory material within the
meaning of the Act. Therefore, it satisfied the requirement of s. 1(1)(a). However, the Court
found that the Defendant did notmeet the requirements of s. 1(1)(b) and 1(1)(c), which were also
necessary to establish the defence. Demon knew of the posting but did not remove it. Therefore,
according to the Court, the Defendant did not take reasonable care, and had reason to believe that
it contributed to the publication of the defamatory statement.
The Defendant also relied on theLunneydecision, which did not consider s. 230 of the
CDA in its analysis. The English court found that under English common law Prodigy would
have been considered to be a publisher in that case. Therefore, under common law principles or
the application of s. 1 of the Defamation Act 1996, Demon had no defence.
-
8/3/2019 ICT LAW - Liability of ISPs - Assign. 1
13/16
Liabi l i ty of Internet Service Providers ( ISPs) ; Shoot ing the Messenger
12
Clifton D. Campbell (0904536)
Bunt v Tilley and other [2007] 1 WLR 1243 ;[2006]EWHC 407 (QB)
The claimant brought proceedings for libel against the six defendants. He alleged that the
to third defendants had posted defamatory messages on websites hosted by third parties and that
they had done so by means of the services provided by the fourth to sixth defendants, theirrespective Internet service providers. It was not alleged that the fourth to sixth defendants had
any role other than that of granting access to the Internet to the to third defendants. The fourth to
sixth defendants applied for orders striking out or granting summary judgment on the claims
against them, contending that they were not publishers of the messages at common law.
The court granted the application on the basis that to be liable for a defamatory
publication at common law a defendant must knowingly be involved in the process of
publication of the relevant words, and it was not enough that the defendant merely played a
passive instrumental role in the process. Also influencing the courts decision was the fact that
there no realistic prospect of the claimant establishing that any of the fourth to sixth defendants
had knowingly participated in the relevant publications. As a matter of law an Internet service
provider which performed no more than a passive role in facilitating postings on the Internet
could not be deemed to be a publisher at common law. Therefore the claims against the t the
fourth to sixth defendants was rightly struck out.
This case can be distinguished from the Godfrey case on the basis that here the ISP had
no knowledge of the infringement by the user.
LIABILITY OF ISP FOR CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Similarly, ISPs must also contact the originator of the communication and prevent access,
since they are the conduits or off-ramp to the end user. Thus liability is couched in the fact that
an ISP is either an innocent disseminator or just merely distributing, but with the knowledge of
the content thereof. According to the Child Pornography (Prevention) Act 2009 of Jamaica
which is in line with the legislations of many other countries and the international treaties;
4.-(1) A person commits an offence who knowingly
(a) produces child pornography;
(b) distributes, imports or exports child pornography;
(c) distributes any advertisement likely to be understood as conveying that the advertiser or any
other person produces, distributes, imports, or exports, any child pornography; or
(d) possesses any child pornography for the purpose of distributing, importing, or exporting,
it.
-
8/3/2019 ICT LAW - Liability of ISPs - Assign. 1
14/16
Liabi l i ty of Internet Service Providers ( ISPs) ; Shoot ing the Messenger
13
Clifton D. Campbell (0904536)
(2) In this Act, distributing child pornography includes selling it or publishing it in any form, and
parting with possession of child pornography by exposing or offering it for acquisition by another
person.
This means that in Jamaica ISPs are exempted from liability if they play a passive role in
the transmission of such pornography, viz., have no knowledge that their servers are being used
to disseminate pornographic materials. Under the Protection of Children Act, 1978, it is a
criminal offence to take, distribute, exhibit, or possess even one 'indecent' photograph of a
child in England and in Wales much in the same way as Jamaica makes it a criminal offence.
In the US the situation is slightly different in that by virtue of the Digital Millennium
Copyright Act (DCMA) 1998 and the Communications Decency Act (CDA) which when
enacted which brought a certain degree of immunity to the ISPs as it recognized the perils of
such regulations as stifling growth, slowing innovation and (as involving) too much censorship.
The case Doe v. America Online718 So 2d 385 (4th Cir., 1999) is illustrative of how
CDA section 230 of the interpretations have resulted in a favourable ruling for AOL in a case of
child pornography. AOL was held not liable for not monitoring the chat room thereby violating
obscenity statutes.
CONCLUSION
The approach of the US has been pro-ISPs as courts and the legislators have largely
concluded that if intermediaries were to be held liable every time objectionable content has been
posted online, the threat of liability and efforts at clearance could weaken the Internet. The US
pro ISP moves can be found in two regimes.
The first regime is found in s 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) which
provides total immunity in respect of all kinds of liability bar that relating to intellectual
property, so long as the content in question was provided by a party other than the service
provider. See Zeran v. America Online, Inc.,129 F.3d 327, 330 (4th Cir. 1997).
The second regime, found in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DCMA), 1998Title
512, exempts online intermediaries of various types from liability in relation to copyrightinfringement by means of a set of safe harbours, but only on certain terms, such as the
disclosure of the identity of infringers on request, subscription to a detailed code of practice
relating to notice, take-downand put-back, and the banning of identified repeat infringers
from access.
-
8/3/2019 ICT LAW - Liability of ISPs - Assign. 1
15/16
Liabi l i ty of Internet Service Providers ( ISPs) ; Shoot ing the Messenger
14
Clifton D. Campbell (0904536)
As it now stands, there is no such move being made by the UK or Jamaica. They have
opted to shoot the messenger all be it only when they, ISPs are shown to participate in a way
that goes past passivity, viz., where they have knowledge of the material being posted and stored
on their servers. It is submitted that this continue to be the case or that Jamaica and UK adopt a
similar stance to the USA. These jurisdictions are closer to private enforcement by ISPs, which
has raised serious concerns since the early days of Internet regulation and continues to raise such
concerns. One concern is that holding ISPs liable for potentially injurious content would
encourage them to screen postings, filter out potentially controversial postings, and restrict
access to controversial content. Risk-averse ISPs might seek to minimize their potential liability
by limiting access to any risky content, or disabling any interactive services that could increase
their potential liabilityas long as the utility they derive from allowing the distribution of
infringing materials remains low.
There is a serious concern that turning decisions regarding access to information to
private parties, motivated by profits, would compromise free speech.
-
8/3/2019 ICT LAW - Liability of ISPs - Assign. 1
16/16
Liabi l i ty of Internet Service Providers ( ISPs) ; Shoot ing the Messenger
15
REFERENCES
Anjali Anchayil & Arun Mattamana, Intermediary Liability And Child Pornography: A
Comparative Analysis[2010] Journal Of International Commercial Law And Technology
Vol. 5, Issue 1
Ian Lloyd, Information Technology Law (5th edn Oxford University Press, Oxford 2009)
Matthew Collins, The Law of Defamation and the Internet(2nd edn Oxford University Press,
Oxford 2005)
Matthew Just, 'Internet File-Sharing and the Liability of Intermediaries for Copyright
Infringement: A Need for International Consensus' [2003 ] 1 The Journal of Information,
Law and Technology (JILT) accessed 05
October 2011
Michael Deturbide, 'Liability of Internet Service Providers for Defamation in the US and Britain:
Same Competing Interests, Different Responses', [2000] 3 The Journal of Information,
Law and Technology (JILT) accessed
05 October 2011
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/elj/jilt/2003_1/http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/elj/jilt/http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/elj/jilt/http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/elj/jilt/2003_1/