siber law tuto 4.pptx

8/10/2019 SIBER LAW TUTO 4.pptx

1/29

LIABILITY OFINTERNET SERVICE

PROVIDERRaudhah MazmanA146450


2/29

QUESTION 4


3/29

Millennium Network v .

Issues

1) Defamatorynews of PrinceNazri with Siti

Nurhalina

2) Leaking ofBritneySpearss latest

album

3)Nakedpictures of

Hollywoodsactress


4/29

DEFAMATORY NEWOF PRINCE NAZRI

AND SITI NURHALIN


5/29

Libel is when such words are expressed in a permanent form which is usually the eye, like in a book, e-mail or picture.Slander is when such words are exprtemporary form, usually when spoken or made by body movements

In civil cases of defamation, when a private person sues another private perdefamation, the Defamation Act 1957 is applicable.

In criminal cases of defamation, when the state prosecutes a private persondefamation, Section 499 to Section 502 of the Penal Code is applicable.


6/29

Millennium Network v Prince N

Definition of defamation :

- An expression of words that degrades another person 's reputation in the esociety Chris Reed and John Angel , Computer Law 4thEdition.

In this case , Joe had:

A) received information of alleged affair between Prince Nazri dan Siti Nufrom an outsider, without investigating the truth of this allegation.

B) He, then spread this news via email to his friends.

Question : How far is the liability of Millennium Network is this matter?


7/29

Stratton Oakmont Inc. v ProdigyServices Co

In October 1994, an unidentified user of Prodigy's Money Tbulletin board created a post which claimed that StrattonOakmont, Inc., a Long Island securities investment banking

and its president Danny Porush, committed criminal and fraactsin connection with the initial public offering of stock oSolomon-Page, Ltd. Stratton Oakmont sued Prodigy and thunidentified poster for defamation.


8/29

ARGUMENTS

PLAINTIFS :

The plaintiffs argued that Prodigy should be considered a publisher of the dematerial and were therefore liablefor the postings under the common-law ddefamation.

DEFENDANTS:

Prodigy asked to be dismissed from the case on thegrounds that they could nliable for the content of postings created by its users, relying on a 1991 case Cv. CompuServe Inc., which had found CompuServe, an online service provideas a publisher for user-generated content


9/29

JUDGEMENT

The court held that Prodigy was liable as the publisher of the content createusers because it exercised editorial control over the messages on their bulletthree ways: 1) by posting Content Guidelines for users, 2) by enforcing thosewith "Board Leaders", and 3) by utilizing screening software designed to remooffensive language.

The court's general argument for holding Prodigy liable, in the face of the Cocase, was that "Prodigy's conscious choice, to gain the benefits of editorial copened it up to a greater liability to CompuServe and other computer netwmake no such choice.


10/29

Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe In

CompuServe, an Internet service provider, hosted an online news forum, theof which were generated by a contractor. Cameron Communications, Inc. "manage, review, create, delete, edit, and otherwise control the contents" oforums. Cameron Communications then subcontracted the production of RUSA, a daily newsletter.

In April 1990, Rumorville published defamatory content about a competing onewsletter developed by Blanchard and Cubby, Inc. CompuServe did not ddefamatory nature of the content. However, no evidence presented duringdemonstrated that CompuServe knew, or should have known, of the existendefamatory content.


11/29

ARGUMENTS

Plaintifs:

Cubby alleged that CompuServe was the publisher of the defamatory statemen"publisher," in the context of defamation law, is one who publishes or otherwise recontent. According to federal law and in agreement with New York state law, a who repeats or republishes defamatory content has the same liability as the origipublisher of the content.

Defendants :

. CompuServe maintained that it was merely a distributor of the published statemDistributors of defamatory content can only be held liable if they knew, or had reknow, of the defamatory nature of the content.The court held that "CompuServemore editorial control over such a publication [as Rumorville] than does a publicbook store, or newsstand, and it would be no more feasible for CompuServe to eevery publication it carries for potentially defamatory statements than it would bother distributor to do so"


12/29


13/29

These two cases , CompuServe and Prodigy indicate that where there is a mdiscussion group online, there is potential liability-for the moderator, the onlincarrying the discussion group, or both.


14/29

Does the Millenium Network has the power to exercise editorial control (delesave) for all information uploaded to its service and in the forum?

-If yes, Millenium Network is liable to Prince Nazri dan Siti Nurhalina, followingprinciple in Prodigy.

-If no, Millenium Network is not liable for defamatory content of alleged affaPrince Nazri dan Siti Nurhalina, following the principle in CompuServe.


15/29

LEAKING OF BRITNESPEARSS HEY

CRAZY BOY


16/29

BITLAW

A party is guilty of copyright infringement if they violate one of the exclusive rights given to cowners under the Copyright Act Included in those rights are the right to prevent others from(or copying) a work, publicly displaying a work, or distributing a work. It is clear that on-line sproviders will be liable for copyright infringement if they are directly involved in the copyingmaterial. For example, if a service provider were to place an electronic copy of the latest bnovel (or a pirated copy of Microsoft Word) on their bulletin board or web site, they would bcopyright infringement. In these circumstances, an ISP is no different than any other party.

However, Internet Service Providers can be found liable for copyright infringement even wh

not directly engaged in the copying of protected materials. For instance, ISPs are responsibequipment, such as a computer operating as a server, that is capable of making copies widirect involvement of any person. Consequently, one relevant question is: "when is an ISP liacopyright law for the copies made by its equipment?" As one example, the newsgroup servby ISPs make thousands of copies of newsgroup files everyday. Although some of these filescontain copyrighted materials, no ISP has yet to be found guilty of copyright infringement munknown, autonomous action of their newsgroup servers.


17/29

Categories of liability :

1) Direct liability

-The Internet Service Provider had made a direct violation of copyright towaparty.

Direct infringement : direct infringement would be if the ISP were to knowingcopyrighted material and received a direct financial benefit from it.


18/29

Categories of liability:

Shift liability :

It is different from direct liability, in such that in dependant liability, the ISP hamade a direct violation, but ISP has provided devices such as gadget, whicto make copies without involving any individual.


19/29

Kazaa BV v Vereniging Buma &Stiching Sterma Amsterdam

In this case the judgment of the court has decided that the system software Kazaz can be used to exchange data files and judiciary , in the meantime thof infringement of Copyright information and data does not require the interthe Kazaa alone. Therefore,Kazaa can not be convicted until he proved to caused the software to do things that have been said to lead to a breach o

Copyright of data and information exchange


20/29

Categories of liability

Contributory liability :

-Internet Service Providers can be liable of copyright infrightment if they cadrives copyright infrightment

- Such is that, the ISP have knowledge of the infringement but did not do anyaction to block or stop these violations from happening , they will be liable o

infrightment.


21/29


22/29

Religious Technology Centre v Netcom

Line Communication Services Inc.

in this case the plaintiff, who is a representative of the church has taken actia defendant who was said to spread a copy of the work that has been creaRon Hubbaard in a newspaper . The defendant in this case is an ISP compannewspaper's website

In his judgment, the court has ruled that the defendant is not liable becausedefendant was not the only party that has contributed to the dissemination

results of the work behind it is the press is.


23/29

ALS Scan, Inc. v. RemarQCommunities In ALS Scan, Inc. v. RemarQ Communities, Inc.the Fourth Circuit Court of App

considered whether an ISP is eligible for protection when it is alerted to infrinactivity by imperfect notice that does not strictly comply with the notificatprocedures specified in 512(c)(3). ALS Scan holds the copyrights to over 10adult photographs which were posted on newsgroups that were operatedservice provider RemarQ Communities. Upon discovering that RemarQsservcontained infringing material, ALS Scan sent a cease and desist letter to Rrequesting deletion of two specific newsgroups that contained the photograHowever, the district court in ALS Scan found that the notice was fatally decomplying with 512(c)(3) because ALS Scan never provided RemarQ with arepresentative list of the infringing photographs. Nor did it identify the pornphotographs with sufficient detail to enable RemarQ to locate and disablethem.


24/29

In this case, Joe is a registered user , hence he is under the liability of MilleniuNetwork, thus the liability is on Millenium Network for issues on copyright infrig

Since there is thousands or millions registered users, it is impossible for Milleniuto filter all the activities of this users. Nevertheless, if the ISP can control the athis users but fail to do so, ISP is liable for copyright infrighment. Besides that, found out about this leaking album matter, they should have removed it fromservice,as soon as possible.

Even if, Millenium Network is not directly involved , need to prove that they cliable if they knew about copyright infringement committed by users of their The knowledge of the infrightment is important .


25/29

OBSCENEMATERIALS


26/29

ISPs are potentially liable for any unlawful material that might be hosted on tsystems and posted by third-parties. Pornographic material posted on websiforums is no exception to the various forms of unlawful material.

ISPs are exempt from liability if they play a passive role in the transmission of spornography. Similarly, ISPs must also contact the originator of the communiprevent access, since they are the conduits or off-ramp to the end user. Thucouched in the fact that an ISP is either an innocent disseminator or just mer

distributing, but with the knowledge of the content thereof.

It would be appropriate to interpose that for anyone who knowingly createsdistributes, produces, imports or is in possession of child pornography, liabilityattach


27/29

The ISP is also at risk of being held liable for the offence of publication of obsmaterial, if it hosts a website displaying such material. ISP acting as a host, chsubscription fee, giving access to the material is committing the offence.

A question here arises that if a clients webpage which is hosted on its serverobscene material, can the ISP be held liable ?


28/29

PLAYBOY ENTERPRISE V FRENA

Defendant George Frena operated a subscription computer bulletin board Techs Warehouse BBS (BBS). Photographs copyrighted by Plaintiff PlayboyEntertainment, Inc.'s (PEI) were uploaded onto BBS without permission. SubBBS were allowed to browse and download the photographs in high qualitycomputerized images which were then stored on the subscribers home comOne hundred and seventy of the images that were available on BBS were cophotographs taken from PEI's copyrighted materials.

Defendant Frena claimed to never have uploaded any of PEI's photographsand that subscribers to BBS uploaded the photographs. Defendant Frena stasoon as he was served with a summons and made aware of this matter, he rthe photographs and has since that time monitored BBS to prevent additionphotographs of PEI from being uploaded.


29/29

JUDGEMENT

Public distribution of a copyrighted work is a right reserved to the copyright oseizure of that right constitutes infringement. The Court held that PEI's right tocopies to the public was violated by Defendant Frena. Exclusive rights in copworks[6] grants PEI the exclusive rights to sell, give away, rent or lend any maembodiment of his work.

In addressing Defendant Fernasargument that he did not make the unauth

copies but that subscribers to BBS uploaded the photographs, the Court ruledid not matter that Frena was not the originator of the authorized copies. Fesupplied a product containing unauthorized copies. Therefore he violated Pexclusive rights.

siber law tuto 4.pptx

Documents