A bit off the subject, but touching upon copyright insofar as "ownership" and the "right to use" of posted messages to publicly accessible areas of the Internet, a (California state court) decision regarding Section 230 of the (US) Communications Decency Act, regarding exemption of "facilitators" (Internet Service Providers, networks, backones, telcos, etc.), from becoming parties to libel in the hands of their subscribers was made last year, granting "publishers" (users, subscribers) the right of defense under Section 230 enjoyed by facilitators.

Generally speaking, the law holds that repetition of a libel is an act of libel.  The decision effectively says that if one reposts a libel found posted to the Internet, they may claim a defence under Section 230, for the reason that they, being part of the Internet when online, are simply accommodating the libel's further transmission, and that the party (publisher) doing so needs not verify the accuracy or lack thereof pertaining to the content of the post.  (I'm a cross-co-defendant along with a group of physician co-plaintiffs who claimed damage by libel; the co-defendants having cross-complained against the co-plaintiffs, adding many of their respective associates.)

The FTC joined the action as an "interested party", moving it to federal court (Anaheim?).  Secondary to our contention that the parties continuing the libel by reposting libelous material (which is continuing to appear from anonymous remailers) are not facilitators and thus should not be afforded the Section 230 defence, the question of copyright of the original posts, I expect, will arise.  Unlike a contract, which is unenforceable where the legality of object is invalid, I *think* that even libelous material has copyright, assuming the author and publisher don't mind paying continuing damages, or until a court strips them of their right.

What concerns me is the potential for a scenario where a party libels another, without intent, acting as quickly as possibly upon being apprised of relavent truths, but under the protection of CDA Sec. 230, a third party is replicating the offending material as a "facilitator".  If that third party has neglible or diminished liability for repetition of a libel, could their continued conduct undermine the original uttering party's efforts to mitigate the damages?

Michael


At 04:47 PM 5/1/02 -0500, Dennis Budd wrote:
>
>These assertions, which have been made repeatedly in lists like this
>one, remind me that one *cannot* assume that just because many people
>on the Net say something, it must be true.  In this case, it is not
>true.
>
>A look at the actual terms of service reveals several things ......