Out-Law newsletter says IWF "was wrong to lift its ban on a Wikipedia page"

[Richard Clayton]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In article <877i52aokc.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>, Florian Weimer
<fw@deneb.enyo.de> writes

>> (2) If an ISP hosts material on behalf of another, they are not liable 
>> for the contents of that material *until* they are put on notice and 
>> fail to expeditiously remove it or block access to it. If they continue 
>> to provide access after notice, then they lose this defence but may 
>> continue to have other defences (e.g. "it's not indecent").
>>
>> If DataHop don't control the machines (not the access, the machines) 
>> that Wikimedia use, then (2) doesn't apply.
>
>So how do we get illegal content off the Internet if the criminals are
>service providers themselves?

The immunities that ISPs (and other intermediaries) are given don't
apply if they're generating the content themselves

- -- 
richard                                              Richard Clayton

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.         Benjamin Franklin

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1

iQA/AwUBSWlNDpoAxkTY1oPiEQLthwCg2VslQbsuhBsb6fcEzLVyMRES+TAAn3jU
bEmgD0lJxmSfnVTfQ7PHC2Ml
=4ao9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----