It's Time To Harmonize Service Provider Safe Harbor Rules

from the because-confusing-rules-are-bad dept

Eric Goldman points us to a relatively recent paper by Mark Lemley that takes a look at internet safe harbors for service providers. Lemley agrees with many of us around here that safe harbors make perfect sense, since there's no reason to put the liability on a third party who is simply providing a service, rather than the person actually breaking the law. However, his complaint is that there are different safe harbor rules written into different laws and they have different requirements. For example, copyright safe harbors are a part of the DMCA and require a specific process to receive protection. Safe harbors for libel, however, are in the CDA and work differently than the ones in the DMCA. Since the purpose of both safe harbors is the same, it makes sense, as Lemley suggests, that the various safe harbor rules be put under a single umbrella and harmonized. It's such a reasonable idea it'll probably never happen.
Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: cda, dmca, safe harbor


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2007 @ 10:52am

    yeah but then ppl will require less specialized lawyers and lawyers wouldn't have that

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    RandomThoughts, 16 Aug 2007 @ 11:09am

    Most people don't understand what safe harbor means today, it may make sense to harmonize it but as providers differ greatly it would be hard to come up with something for everyone.

    If folks in one specific area can't agree on what safe harbor means for their specific industry (YouTube v. Viacom and others) how can a standard cover all providers?

    I wonder when Michael Jackson goes after YouTube for the prisioner remake of Thriller? Kind of hard for YouTube doesn't know of the violation when its been on TV and has over 5 million hits. Can't imagine the warden got permission for that one.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    bored now, 16 Aug 2007 @ 11:24am

    There's horizontal and there's vertical...

    and it's important to know the difference.

    Establishing the possibility of safe habours is a horizontal measure. That's been done in many places (the EU E-Commerce directive is one example).

    Procedures for implementing safe harbour, processing allegations etc. are not suitable for the horizontal approach. Instead, we need a set of procedures, each designed vertically and tailored to the alleged offence.

    Or to put it another way, copyright infringement is not defamation is not images of child abuse.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2007 @ 12:17pm

    Bad idea

    Anything billed as harmonization tends to take the worst bits of the existing laws:

    Oh noes! Different states have different spam laws, so spammers might unexpectedly get in trouble -> CAN-SPAM.

    US has DMCA; other countries don't -> some WIPO and EU activity to `fix' this.

    Patent lengths are different -> lengthen them again in the US.

    Given this sort of history, I'd expect a harmonized safe harbor law to be designed as a barrier to entry for startups; perhaps it could even break the big players. The *AA could easily write a `reasonable' requirement that an online provider operate 24-hour complaint center which responds within 1 hour to notices of alleged violations or something.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Essential Reading
Techdirt Insider Chat
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.