Comments on: ISPs as mere conduits & loony litigants in person http://blog.geeklawyer.org/2006/03/21/isps-as-mere-conduits-loony-litigants-in-person/ A barrister gossips & rants on intellectual property law, the legal system and civil liberties. Sat, 22 Nov 2008 04:40:32 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5 By: Tee Hee Hee http://blog.geeklawyer.org/2006/03/21/isps-as-mere-conduits-loony-litigants-in-person/#comment-1258 Tee Hee Hee Sun, 30 Apr 2006 21:23:53 +0000 http://blog.geeklawyer.org/?p=404#comment-1258 That Bunty sound loik a roight Debben loonytik.... That Bunty sound loik a roight Debben loonytik….

]]> By: Tim Hendrix http://blog.geeklawyer.org/2006/03/21/isps-as-mere-conduits-loony-litigants-in-person/#comment-1257 Tim Hendrix Sun, 30 Apr 2006 17:26:51 +0000 http://blog.geeklawyer.org/?p=404#comment-1257 I get the impression that this was nothing but an outright attempt at fraud by John Bunt. Anyone who has looked through the newsgroup uk.local.southwest and has read Bunts rantings - in which he invariably brings paedophilia into every subject knows he is not right in the head. He got off light at £40,000 costs. I doubt he will be able to pay. I get the impression that this was nothing but an outright attempt at fraud by John Bunt. Anyone who has looked through the newsgroup uk.local.southwest and has read Bunts rantings - in which he invariably brings paedophilia into every subject knows he is not right in the head. He got off light at £40,000 costs. I doubt he will be able to pay.

]]> By: Unenlightened of nowhere in particular http://blog.geeklawyer.org/2006/03/21/isps-as-mere-conduits-loony-litigants-in-person/#comment-1255 Unenlightened of nowhere in particular Sat, 25 Mar 2006 02:13:25 +0000 http://blog.geeklawyer.org/?p=404#comment-1255 "More generally, I am also prepared to hold as a matter of law that an ISP which performs no more than a passive role in facilitating postings on the internet cannot be deemed to be a publisher" Hmm. Exactly how passive does that role have to be? I thought ISPs have an obligation to remove postings that they have been informed MAY infringe copyright for example. That would seem to be marginally more than passive, but clearly there's a whole scale from entirely passive to active posting. Are ISPs obligated, for example, to hire staff at the weekend to ensure prompt removal? On the one hand, the lack of such a requirement provides a window for infringing posts but on the other, the presence of such a requirement would favour larger ISPs to the detriment of their smaller competitors. “More generally, I am also prepared to hold as a matter of law that an ISP which performs no more than a passive role in facilitating postings on the internet cannot be deemed to be a publisher”

Hmm. Exactly how passive does that role have to be? I thought ISPs have an obligation to remove postings that they have been informed MAY infringe copyright for example. That would seem to be marginally more than passive, but clearly there’s a whole scale from entirely passive to active posting. Are ISPs obligated, for example, to hire staff at the weekend to ensure prompt removal? On the one hand, the lack of such a requirement provides a window for infringing posts but on the other, the presence of such a requirement would favour larger ISPs to the detriment of their smaller competitors.

]]> By: geeklawyer.org » Blog Archive » more defamation http://blog.geeklawyer.org/2006/03/21/isps-as-mere-conduits-loony-litigants-in-person/#comment-1256 geeklawyer.org » Blog Archive » more defamation Wed, 22 Mar 2006 22:39:12 +0000 http://blog.geeklawyer.org/?p=404#comment-1256 [...] geeklawyer.org Bar Talk: blogging about intellectual property, civil liberties and the legal system. Plus some angry liberal ranting « ISPs as mere conduits & loony litigants in person [...] […] geeklawyer.org Bar Talk: blogging about intellectual property, civil liberties and the legal system. Plus some angry liberal ranting « ISPs as mere conduits & loony litigants in person […]

]]>