Net Responsibility
In Canada, it has just been ruled by the Supreme Court that hostsÂ? are notÂ? liable for their guests that make the choice toÂ? drink, drive, and end up injuring someone. One of the key factorsÂ? in this specific case is that the party was a “BYOB” or bring your own booze/bottle party, and the hosts were not providing or pouring the alcohol. The hosts merely provided a service (having a party), and the user of this service chose to abuse it by driving away intoxicated.Â?
With so many sites relying on user generated content, the question of liability for the owner of the website starts to become a very interesting topic. In the 90’s, Napster provided a service to a wide variety of users. Having been involved in computers and the Internet long before the average user,Â? we would have to say that downloading music and burning customer CD’s is probably one of the major catalysts in bringing computers into the mainstream. Finally, the average person had a use for the technology so many of us had become so accustomed to. It was a good run, but the big corporations running the music industry were eventually able to shut down the popular P2P site, and the file swapping network has been struggling to remain relevant on the Internet ever since. Several other P2P sites have flourished in the absense.
Sites like YouTube, the popular video sharing website, have similar problems to that of the original Napster. Although the focus of the site is the exchange of video content, users can upload almost any form of video to the site. The general population seems to focus their concern on pornography and gratuitous violence, but the general population doesn’t have the financial interest that the corporations may have in these types of sites. Many of the videos that are displayed actually act as advertisements, providing some of the best commercials and sports highlights to interested parties that ultimately are the consumers corporations look to target. The problem with this method is that full television shows and/or movies can also be uploaded and provided to the users. Again, the service is not necessarily setup to facilitate these types of exchanges, and in the wake of the Napster situation, these sites are more cautious with their content. But should these sites really be held responsible for the misuse of the site? If I’m speeding down the freeway and cause an accident, the government isn’t held responsible for not better regulating what I do on the road.
What makes this more interesting is an article I read on techdirt. Google provides a self serving advertising platform that goes live almost immediately. This system allows individuals to place ads without having them pre-approved, and consequently, almost anything is advertised on the Google network. These ads are eventually removed if deemed inappropriate, and Google seems to be protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency act - in essence, “the service provider should not be treated as the publisher of offensive material.” Now I understand that there are significant differences, but I have to question whether there should be a difference in the laws governing the two situaitons. How can one site be held responsible for the misuse of the service they provide while another site is protected by law for the misuse of their site?