Internet Law: Internet News at Large: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
BerkmanSysop (talk | contribs) m (Reverted edits by 88.240.109.36 (talk) to last revision by DanaF) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<b>September 5th, 2006:</b> | |||
[http://cbs5.com/topstories/local_story_247154828.html/ State Supreme Court to Hear Internet Libel Case]<br> | |||
The case is interesting because it involves not just the defendant, but the Internet Service Provider. Should ISPs be responsible for what their clients say? Or are they protected, like AT&T and other telephone companies? | |||
: Thanks for pointing this out. We'll soon be looking at [http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode47/usc_sec_47_00000230----000-.html#c CDA 230(c)(1)], which the ISPs are relying on for protection. | |||
: [http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1157462050900 This report] suggests that plaintiff's argument didn't get much support from the court. | |||
<hr> | |||
<b>Oct 11, 2006:</b><br> | |||
[http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-10-10-internet-defamation-case_x.htm Jury awards $11.3M over defamatory Internet posts]<br>Not highly relevant, but it relates back to class two and is kinda funny. <br> | |||
Two people get into a fight, and one posts some comments on the internet that the other is a crook. There's a defamation suit and the defendant doesnt show up in court. Defendant then complains: "Nobody heard my side." <br><br> 11 million is the largest judgment yet over internet postings.<br> | |||
some commentary from [http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?threshold=4&mode=thread&commentsort=0&op=Change&sid=200219 /.] | |||
<hr> | |||
<b>Nov 7, 2006:</b><br> | |||
[http://www.theage.com.au/news/web/utube-sues-youtube/2006/11/02/1162339964137.html utube sues youtube] <br> | |||
in the reverse of regular trademark problems, universal tubing is suing youtube because its getting too many hits and utube doesnt want to pay for the additional server costs.<br> youtubes pockets got a lot deeper last week. coincidence? | |||
<hr> | |||
<b>Nov 22, 2006:</b><br> | |||
[http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=technologyNews&storyID=2006-11-21T203204Z_01_L20597961_RTRUKOC_0_US-MICROSOFT-LINUX.xml&WTmodLoc=TechNewsHome_C1_%5BFeed%5D-6 Microsoft to face challenge over Linux licenses] | |||
Apparently Microsoft signed a deal with one of the providers of Linux, in which the provider, Novell, paid a lump sum in return for a guarantee that Microsoft would not sue Novell's clients for what it calls a violation of its own patents in the Linux program. | |||
One of the pioneers of free software said Microsoft's deal skirts the requirements of the GNU General Public License, used by Linux and other free programs, which requires the software to be given away. | |||
Latest revision as of 16:20, 26 April 2013
September 5th, 2006:
State Supreme Court to Hear Internet Libel Case
The case is interesting because it involves not just the defendant, but the Internet Service Provider. Should ISPs be responsible for what their clients say? Or are they protected, like AT&T and other telephone companies?
- Thanks for pointing this out. We'll soon be looking at CDA 230(c)(1), which the ISPs are relying on for protection.
- This report suggests that plaintiff's argument didn't get much support from the court.
Oct 11, 2006:
Jury awards $11.3M over defamatory Internet posts
Not highly relevant, but it relates back to class two and is kinda funny.
Two people get into a fight, and one posts some comments on the internet that the other is a crook. There's a defamation suit and the defendant doesnt show up in court. Defendant then complains: "Nobody heard my side."
11 million is the largest judgment yet over internet postings.
some commentary from /.
Nov 7, 2006:
utube sues youtube
in the reverse of regular trademark problems, universal tubing is suing youtube because its getting too many hits and utube doesnt want to pay for the additional server costs.
youtubes pockets got a lot deeper last week. coincidence?
Nov 22, 2006:
Microsoft to face challenge over Linux licenses
Apparently Microsoft signed a deal with one of the providers of Linux, in which the provider, Novell, paid a lump sum in return for a guarantee that Microsoft would not sue Novell's clients for what it calls a violation of its own patents in the Linux program.
One of the pioneers of free software said Microsoft's deal skirts the requirements of the GNU General Public License, used by Linux and other free programs, which requires the software to be given away.