July 2010 - nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

Re: [nexa] ACTA e Libertà: Il negoziatore UE al Commitee on Civil Liberties

by Paolo Brini

Il 14/07/2010 15:24, Blengino ha scritto: > Meglio del nulla....(sebbene non l'abbia ancora sentito fino in fondo) Salve a tutti, dal leak dei documenti è già evidente che ci sia qualcosa che non va nelle dichiarazioni di De Gucht. A esplicita domanda di Lambrinidis, De Gucht risponde (minuto dal 41 in poi) che ACTA non conterrà più la definizione di violazione su scala commerciale. Lambrinidis gli chiede conferma, mostrandogli anche il foglio della vecchia versione di ACTA con evidenziato in giallo l'articolo 2.14 sulla definizione, e De Gucht conferma (caliamo un velo pietoso sui 5-10 secondi di audio "stranamente" non presente nel video proprio durante la seconda conferma a Lambrinindis). A pagina 15 dei documenti ufficiali invece si vede proprio che ACTA contiene una definizione di scala commerciale. E che tale definizione è stata scritta nell'ultimo round anche dall'Unione Europea. Si tratta di una definizione a mio avviso molto migliore di quella precedente (che faceva rientrare nelle violazioni su scala commerciale da punire con la carcerazione tutte le violazioni con o senza motivazione di guadagni finanziari diretti o indiretti) ma ancora sufficiente (secondo Ante Wessels) a far ricadere in reato penale l'atto di remix di brani musicali da parte di un ragazzino. Occorre dire che è presente una proposta di modifica proprio dell'UE che propone di escludere esplicitamente i consumatori finali dall'ambito di applicazione delle violazioni su scala commerciale (e se se ne sente il bisogno, vuol dire che l'attuale definizione può in effetti coinvolgere tutti). Perché De Gucht abbia agito così resta per me un mistero: spera forse che i MEP di LIBE, ai quali sono stati affidati i documenti ufficiali, non arrivino a leggere a pag. 15? Per l'ennesima volta un Commissario disinforma su ACTA gli europarlamentari. Vedi anche: http://www.vrijschrift.org/serendipity/index.php?/archives/103-Commissioner… Ciao, Paolo > > > http://ec.europa.eu/avservices/player/streaming.cfm?sid=163770 > <http://ec.europa.eu/avservices/player/streaming.cfm?sid=163770&type=ebsplus >> &type=ebsplus > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa

July 15, 2010

Re: [nexa] ACTA e Libertà: Il negoziatore UE al Commitee on Civil Liberties

by Paolo Brini

Il 14/07/2010 16:24, Paolo Brini ha scritto: > Il Commissario De Gucht fra le altre cose ha dichiarato che i documenti > dell'ultimo round di negoziati restano segreti per volontà di un singolo > paese (non citato); una decisione che la Commissione deplora Transcript digitale dei documenti ufficiali trapelati (comodo per ricerche, copia & incolla ecc.): http://quadpad.lqdn.fr:9000/acta20100713leak-transcriptionnnuit Chiunque voglia dare una mano al suo completamento (naturalmente anche in forma anonima) è più che benvenuto. Originali scansionati: http://ur1.ca/0oiyf Ciao, Paolo

July 14, 2010

A proposito di Key Enabling Technologies (KETs)

by Margherita Salvadori

Despite low EU investment in research and development (R&D), Digital Agenda Commissioner Neelie Kroes has rejected widespread recourse to state aid to narrow the gap with Europe's international competitors. (...) Expert group on KETs To address the EU's structural problems in research and innovation, in particular in the strategic sector of key-enabling technologies, the Commission has established a group of experts to provide advices on the way forward. The group started its work 13 July 2010. It is chaired by Jean Therme, director of the French Atomic Energy Commission (CEA by its French acronym), and is composed of high representatives from industry and the academic world. http://www.euractiv.com/en/infosociety/kroes-resists-subsidies-spur-eu-smar…

July 14, 2010

Re: [nexa] ACTA e Libertà: Il negoziatore UE al Commitee on Civil Liberties

by Paolo Brini

Una sintesi del briefing: http://keionline.org/node/886 Il Commissario De Gucht fra le altre cose ha dichiarato che i documenti dell'ultimo round di negoziati restano segreti per volontà di un singolo paese (non citato); una decisione che la Commissione deplora perché può contribuire a far nascere nuovi sospetti. Sospetti che, dico io, non sarebbero ingiustificati, vista l'incredibile quantità di menzogne che i negoziatori hanno propinato al pubblico e al Parlamento Europeo negli ultimi 18 mesi, menzogne svelate definitvamente solo con i documenti ufficiali rilasciati il 21 aprile. Notate la risposta di De Gucht (per lo meno strana) sulle valutazioni di impatto: secondo lui sono inutili. Di sicuro i negoziatori ora hanno una fretta tremenda (per motivi facilmente intuibili), visto che il prossimo round sarà a fine luglio a Washington, D.C., e il successivo subito a settembre, in Giappone. Trovo significativo che anche gruppi industriali e organizzazioni di detentori di monopoli intellettuali che predicano per un forte "IPR" enforcement siano ora *contro* ACTA. http://blog.tntvillage.scambioetico.org/?p=6571 Ciao, Paolo Il 14/07/2010 15:24, Blengino ha scritto: > Meglio del nulla....(sebbene non l'abbia ancora sentito fino in fondo) > > > > http://ec.europa.eu/avservices/player/streaming.cfm?sid=163770 > <http://ec.europa.eu/avservices/player/streaming.cfm?sid=163770&type=ebsplus >> &type=ebsplus > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa

July 14, 2010

ACTA e Libertà: Il negoziatore UE al Commitee on Civil Liberties

by Blengino

Meglio del nulla....(sebbene non labbia ancora sentito fino in fondo) http://ec.europa.eu/avservices/player/streaming.cfm?sid=163770 <http://ec.europa.eu/avservices/player/streaming.cfm?sid=163770&type=ebsplus > &type=ebsplus

July 14, 2010

REMINDER: OGGI ALLE ORE 18 il 22° mercoledì di nexa su liberta' di espressione online in Italia

by J.C. DE MARTIN

-------- Original Message -------- Subject: [nexa] 22° mercoledì di nexa - luglio 2010 Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2010 12:25:38 +0200 From: Anna Piccitto <anna.piccitto(a)polito.it> To: nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it *Libertà di espressione online in Italia* *Mercoledì 14 luglio 2010, ore 18 -- 20* (2° mercoledì del mese) *Corso Trento 21, Torino (primo piano)* *Ingresso libero* L'Italia è un terreno fertile per lo sviluppo di un Internet libero? O vi sono vincoli e barriere che, limitando la libertà di espressione attraverso meccanismi legali e commerciali, rischiano di inibire lo sviluppo del pluralismo online, di una Rete neutrale, di un accesso universale alla banda larga o di nuovi modelli di distribuzione di contenuti digitali? E qual è il peso della Rete, rispetto ad altri media comunicativi, nelle procedure decisionali di un paese che presenta un tasso di penetrazione di Internet tra i più bassi dell'Unione Europea e viene indicato da importanti osservatori internazionali come un paese /"parzialmente libero"/ in termini di libertà dei media? *Andrea Cairola <http://nexa.polito.it/fellows#cairola>* e *Corrado Druetta <http://nexa.polito.it/fellows#druetta>*, Fellows del Centro NEXA su Internet e Società, stanno lavorando ad un Libro bianco che indagherà la realtà italiana con un approccio multidisciplinare e flessibile, per cercare di fotografare lo "stato dell'arte" della libertà d'espressione online in Italia. Tra i temi trattati, figurano: /accesso universale, privacy, copyright, limitazioni costituzionali alla libertà di espressione, questioni infrastrutturali, alfabetizzazione informatica, Internet governance, neutralità della Rete, software open source, leggi sulla stampa e i media online, e-government e livello di penetrazione di Internet nella società italiana/. Il Libro bianco sarà completato nell'*autunno 2010*: l'incontro del 14 Luglio rappresenta un importante momento di confronto sulla prima bozza del progetto, in vista della stesura definitiva. Andrea Cairola e Corrado Druetta ne parleranno con i co-direttori, prof. Juan Carlos De Martin e prof. Marco Ricolfi, i Fellows e lo staff del Centro NEXA, nonché con tutto il pubblico interessato. Streaming video <http://nexa.polito.it/events> dell'evento. Letture consigliate * Guido Scorza (a cura di), /"La libertà nella Rete in Italia" <http://www.societapannunzio.eu/documenti/libroarancione/>/, Società Pannunzio, 2009. * Vincenzo Zeno Zencovich, /"La libertà di espressione. Media, mercato, potere nella società dell'informazione"/, Il Mulino, 2004. * Giuseppe Cassano - Alfonso Contaldo, /"Internet e tutela della libertà di espressione"/, Giuffré, 2009. * * *Ufficio Stampa Centro NEXA: *Anna Piccitto NEXA Center for Internet & Society Politecnico di Torino Dipartimento di Automatica e Informatica Tel. +39 011 564 7245

July 14, 2010

R: Decisioni delle Corti Costituzionali tedesca e rumena sulla trasposizionedella Direttiva

by avv. Monica Alessia Senor

Grazie Ugo, invero l'articolo me lo avevi già da tempo segnalato e l'ho letto. Mi interesserebbe proprio il testo della sentenza. Un caro saluto. Monica -----Messaggio originale----- Da: ugo.pagallo(a)unito.it [mailto:ugo.pagallo@unito.it] Inviato: lunedì 12 luglio 2010 18.06 A: andrea(a)digitalpolicy.it Cc: senor(a)penalistiassociati.it; nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it Oggetto: Re: Decisioni delle Corti Costituzionali tedesca e rumena sulla trasposizionedella Direttiva Cara Monica, mi risulta che Rocco (con Katja de Vries) abbia anche pubblicato sul CEPS un lungo articolo (16 pp.) su entrambe le sentenze: eccolo http://www.ceps.eu/book/proportionality-overrides-unlimited-surveillance Quanto ad Andrea, come sempre puntuale: sono del tutto d'accordo con te che le tecnologie riconfigurino continuamente la nozione di 'processor'. Ti allego un'interessante intervista a due 'pratici' su privacy e cloud computing: The Future is Here... Infine, direi che lasciamo al simpatico Paul the Octopus (pare nato a Ischia), chi dei due abbia ragione! Un 'succulento' (è il caso di dire) quadro dei nuovi media e il business tradizionale in: http://edition.cnn.com/2010/BUSINESS/07/12/paul.octopus.offers/index.html?hp t=C2&fbid=TK06tB_j9as Ciao, u. > > > ------------------ Messaggio originale ------------------- > Oggetto: Decisioni delle Corti Costituzionali tedesca e > rumena sulla trasposizionedella Direttiva "Data Retention" > (Was: Re: R: [nexa] Must-Read EmpiricalStudy of 47 USC 230 > Jurisprudence byDavid Ardia) > Da: "Andrea Glorioso" <andrea(a)digitalpolicy.it> > Data: Lun, 12 Luglio 2010, 4:06 pm > A: "avv. Monica Alessia Senor" > <senor(a)penalistiassociati.it> > Cc: ugo.pagallo(a)unito.it > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > Cara Monica, > > puoi trovare una sintesi in inglese qui: > > http://www.bverfg.de/pressemitteilungen/bvg10-011en.html > > e un commento (tra i moltissimi, ma Rocco Bellanova è un > amico, dunque > in stile tipicamente italiano gli faccio pubblicità :) > qui: > > http://vortex.uvt.nl/TILTblog/?p=118 > > Puoi anche leggere la traduzione non ufficiale in inglese > della sentenza > della Corte Costituzionale rumena qui: > > > http://www.legi-internet.ro/english/jurisprudenta-it-romania/decizii-it/roma nian-constitutional-court-decision-regarding-data-retention.html > > Ciao, > > Andrea > > On 7/12/2010 3:52 PM, avv. Monica Alessia Senor wrote: >> A proposito della sentenza della Corte costituzionale >> tedesca, qualcuno ha >> il testo tradotto (non dico in italiano, ma almeno in >> inglese)? >> Grazie. >> Monica >> >> -----Messaggio originale----- >> Da: nexa-bounces(a)server-nexa.polito.it >> [mailto:nexa-bounces@server-nexa.polito.it] Per conto di >> ugo.pagallo(a)unito.it >> Inviato: lunedì 12 luglio 2010 15.10 >> A: andrea(a)digitalpolicy.it >> Cc: nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it >> Oggetto: Re: [nexa] Must-Read Empirical Study of 47 USC >> 230 Jurisprudence >> byDavid Ardia >> >> Caro Andrea, >> >> grazie (come sempre) per la segnalazione dello studio: >> al >> di là delle sue statistiche (il diavolo è nei dettagli), >> mi sembra sin d'ora confermata l'analisi fatta sul 230 >> DMCA. >> Questo mi consente di riprendere i (tre, in sostanza) >> punti da te avanzati nell'email di ieri. >> Sul primo ha risposto a sua volta Alessandro Mantelero, >> distinguendo tra "trattamento dei dati" e "percezione >> dell'illecito". Non vedo perché, come dici, "appare >> difficile sostenere che un 'data processor' non abbia >> una >> conoscenza attiva dei medesimi [dati]". Tutto sta a >> intendere cosa vuol dire "attivo" in un mondo in cui, >> come >> ricorda la sentenza Google/YouTube v Viacom dalla quale >> eravamo partiti, vengono caricati su YouTube 24 ore di >> video al minuto! Larry Lessig ha ricordato tre/quattro >> mesi fa su La Stampa come, almeno allo stato, non >> abbiamo >> certo la tecnologia per prevenire, diciamo, un reato di >> diffamazione... (da dove era viceversa partito il caso >> Google/Vividown). >> Secondo punto: affermi che il "data processor ha >> comunque >> certe responsabilità". E ci mancherebbe! Solo che NON >> sono >> quelle del dato controller! Per dirne una, non si tratta >> mai di sanzioni penali (come nel caso Google Vividown). >> Gira e rigira, il punto è sempre questo: ai fini della >> normativa sulla privacy (data protection), l'ISP >> 'processors' (nell'italiano della legge, sic!, risponde >> dei) dati immessi autonomamente dall'utente (e.g., user >> generated content), il quale ultimo dunque ne è l'unico >> titolare del trattamento, ovvero, come data controller. >> Ai >> fini della normativa sull'e-commerce, l'ISP non ha >> nessun >> obbligo di vigilanza. Ergo, quello che propongo è de >> iure >> condito, non condendo. L'ISP è 'data controller' >> (titolare >> del trattamento) con annesse responsabilità (anche >> penali): >> a) Nei rapporti contrattuali con i propri utenti; >> b) Quando viene attivato dall'autorità competente o ai >> sensi di legge; >> c) Quando tratta a fini propri e ulteriori le >> informazioni >> immesse dagli utenti, anche riguardo terzi. >> Infine, sul concetto di "informational >> self-determination" >> se ne è occupata, sempre lei!, di recente: Corte >> costituzionale tedesca, sentenza del 2 marzo 2010, 1 BvR >> 256/08. Siccome, come spesso capita col BVG, è una >> sentenza molto corposa, ne parliamo, se mai, con altra >> posta. >> Ciao a tutti, >> Ugo >>> >>> ------------------ Messaggio originale >>> ------------------- >>> Oggetto: [nexa] Must-Read Empirical Study of 47 USC 230 >>> Jurisprudence byDavid Ardia >>> Da: "Andrea Glorioso" <andrea(a)digitalpolicy.it> >>> Data: Lun, 12 Luglio 2010, 10:13 am >>> A: nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it >>> ---------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> Sempre su intermediari e responsabilità, a proposito >>> dei >>> "modello >>> americano": >>> >>> http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2010/06/ardias_empirica.htm >>> >>> Technology & Marketing Law Blog >>> >>> « Payment Service Providers May Be Liable for >>> Counterfeit >>> Website >>> Sales--Gucci v. Frontline | Main | Recent Anti-SLAPP >>> Developments » >>> June 30, 2010 >>> Must-Read Empirical Study of 47 USC 230 Jurisprudence >>> by >>> David Ardia >>> >>> By Eric Goldman >>> >>> David S. Ardia, Free Speech Savior or Shield for >>> Scoundrels: An >>> Empirical Study of Intermediary Immunity Under Section >>> 230 >>> of the >>> Communications Decency Act, 43 Loyola of Los Angeles >>> Law >>> Review 373 (2010) >>> >>> Let me start with the punchline: if you are interested >>> in >>> 47 USC 230 >>> jurisprudence (and let's face it, who isn't???), then >>> you >>> need to read >>> this article. In fact, clear your calendar for this >>> afternoon. Although >>> I am not completely sold on its conclusions, any cogent >>> discussion about >>> 47 USC 230 jurisprudential trendlines must acknowledge >>> this article. >>> >>> David Ardia directs the Citizen Media Law Project, a >>> frequent outlink on >>> this blog. He undertook the heroic (and some might say >>> ill-advised) task >>> of finding and coding 47 USC 230 cases--a total of 184 >>> decisions--and >>> then generating some statistical conclusions from the >>> dataset. This is >>> not a project I would have undertaken because empirical >>> research is such >>> a quagmire, but we as a community of 47 USC 230 >>> scholars >>> and >>> practitioners get the benefit of David's efforts. >>> >>> (I should note that David sent me a draft of this >>> article >>> last Fall, >>> which sat unread in my inbox for 3 months. I then sent >>> David an >>> extremely lengthy and detailed set of comments about a >>> week before his >>> final edits were due to the law review. Some of my >>> critiques are not >>> news to David, but he may not have had a chance to >>> fully >>> address them >>> based on my delayed feedback.) >>> >>> (I further note that I have not doublechecked Davids >>> dataset or coding. >>> For this post, I assume he did it correctly.) >>> >>> If you have limited time (the PDF is 134 pages), start >>> on >>> page 41 of the >>> PDF, which is where the empirical discussions heat up. >>> There is a lot to >>> discuss and explore, but I will highlight two >>> significant >>> statistical >>> conclusions. >>> >>> First, the paper calculates that 230 defendants win the >>> defense "only" >>> about 2/3 of the time, leading him to conclude that the >>> statute "has not >>> been the free pass many of its proponents claim and its >>> critics lament." >>> This is an interesting conclusion, but it leaves me >>> wondering how this >>> compares with the hypothetical calculation of cases >>> where >>> the 230 >>> defense should have failed vs. the situations where it >>> should have >>> succeeded. Still, I am one of the people who thinks 230 >>> is >>> a free pass >>> for defendants, so the successful batting average was >>> lower than I expected. >>> >>> Second, the paper makes the following assertion on page >>> 108: >>> >>> "many of the intermediaries that invoked section 230 >>> likely would not >>> have faced eventual liability under the common law >>> because >>> they lacked >>> knowledge of and editorial control over the third-party >>> content at issue >>> in the cases. Given this prediction, one might question >>> whether section >>> 230 is necessary." >>> >>> Whoa! This is an important and implicitly troubling >>> statement. The paper >>> is positing an alternative scenario where 230 doesn't >>> exist and arguing >>> that we might not notice a difference. Of course, we >>> know >>> that other >>> countries are having very different experiences with >>> UGC >>> due to the >>> 230's absence. At the same time, US common law still >>> differs from other >>> countries' laws, so perhaps the US common law's >>> trajectory >>> would have >>> reached a similar place. Having said that, for reasons >>> the >>> paper does >>> explore, we are better off for having the statutory >>> immunity than >>> relying on common law developments. Furthermore, 230s >>> real brilliance >>> is that it immunizes service providers *because they >>> exercise* editorial >>> control, which leads to better outcomes. >>> >>> I'll briefly mention two other stats that puzzled me. >>> >>> On page 59, the paper says: "in more than half of the >>> section 230 >>> decisions (58.8%), the speech at issue was not >>> published >>> anonymously." >>> Later, on page 115, the paper advances the inverse >>> stat: >>> "41.2% of the >>> decisions studied involved anonymous content." In >>> theory, >>> this means 40% >>> of cases involve primary tortfeasors who can't be >>> found, >>> but I'm >>> skeptical about this because successful online >>> anonymity >>> is really hard. >>> After all, the AutoAdmit authors thought they were >>> anonymous until they >>> were de-anonymized. For more, see Paul Ohm's paper on >>> reidentification. >>> >>> On page 117, the paper says "in more than half of the >>> cases (55%), the >>> content plaintiffs sued over was no longer available as >>> of >>> mid-2009," >>> which suggests plaintiffs can get content takedowns >>> despite 230 because >>> the service provider voluntarily helps or the author >>> takes >>> the content >>> down him/herself (or, in some cases, the court ordered >>> the >>> takedown). >>> This brought to mind the Ripoff Report's refusal to >>> remove >>> content at >>> the author's request, a relatively unique posture for >>> UGC >>> hosts. See >>> Blockowicz v. Williams. >>> >>> The paper gives me another reason to remind you that >>> SCU >>> will be hosting >>> a 47 USC 230 celebration on March 4, 2011, where I hope >>> we >>> will discuss >>> cutting-edge research on 230 like this paper. More >>> details >>> to come, but >>> mark your calendar now. If you are working on >>> 230-related >>> research that >>> you think might be appropriate to present at this >>> conference, please >>> contact me. >>> >>> UPDATE: David's CMLP blog post on his article. >>> ____________ >>> >>> The abstract: >>> >>> In the thirteen years since its enactment, section 230 >>> of >>> the >>> Communications Decency Act has become one of the most >>> important statutes >>> impacting online speech, as well as one of the most >>> intensely >>> criticized. In deceptively simple language, its >>> provisions >>> sweep away >>> the common laws distinction between publisher and >>> distributor >>> liability, granting operators of Web sites and other >>> interactive >>> computer services broad protection from claims based on >>> the speech of >>> third parties. Section 230 is of critical importance >>> because virtually >>> all speech that occurs on the Internet is facilitated >>> by >>> private >>> intermediaries that have a fragile commitment to the >>> speech they facilitate. >>> >>> This Article presents the first empirical study of the >>> section 230 case >>> law. It begins by providing a doctrinal overview of >>> common >>> law liability >>> for intermediaries, both online and offline, and >>> describes >>> how section >>> 230 modifies these doctrinal approaches. It then >>> systematically analyzes >>> the 184 decisions courts have issued since the >>> statutes >>> enactment. The >>> Article also examines how courts have applied section >>> 230, >>> finding that >>> judges have been haphazard in their approach to its >>> application. >>> >>> The Article closes by discussing the studys findings >>> and >>> by offering >>> some insights into how plaintiffs and defendants have >>> fared under >>> section 230. While section 230 has largely protected >>> intermediaries from >>> liability for third-party speech, it has not been the >>> free >>> pass many of >>> its proponents claim and its critics lament. More than >>> a >>> third of the >>> claims at issue in the cases survived a section 230 >>> defense. Even in >>> cases where the court dismissed the claims, >>> intermediaries >>> bore >>> liability in the form of litigation costs, and it took >>> courts, on >>> average, nearly a year to issue decisions addressing an >>> intermediarys >>> defense under section 230. >>> >>> Posted by Eric at June 30, 2010 08:38 AM | Derivative >>> Liability >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> nexa mailing list >>> nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it >>> https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> nexa mailing list >> nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it >> https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa >> >> >> >> > > >

July 12, 2010

Re: [nexa] Decisioni delle Corti Costituzionali tedesca e rumena sulla trasposizionedella Direttiva

by ugo.pagallo＠unito.it

Cara Monica, mi risulta che Rocco (con Katja de Vries) abbia anche pubblicato sul CEPS un lungo articolo (16 pp.) su entrambe le sentenze: eccolo http://www.ceps.eu/book/proportionality-overrides-unlimited-surveillance Quanto ad Andrea, come sempre puntuale: sono del tutto d'accordo con te che le tecnologie riconfigurino continuamente la nozione di 'processor'. Ti allego un'interessante intervista a due 'pratici' su privacy e cloud computing: The Future is Here... Infine, direi che lasciamo al simpatico Paul the Octopus (pare nato a Ischia), chi dei due abbia ragione! Un 'succulento' (è il caso di dire) quadro dei nuovi media e il business tradizionale in: http://edition.cnn.com/2010/BUSINESS/07/12/paul.octopus.offers/index.html?h… Ciao, u. > > > ------------------ Messaggio originale ------------------- > Oggetto: Decisioni delle Corti Costituzionali tedesca e > rumena sulla trasposizionedella Direttiva "Data Retention" > (Was: Re: R: [nexa] Must-Read EmpiricalStudy of 47 USC 230 > Jurisprudence byDavid Ardia) > Da: "Andrea Glorioso" <andrea(a)digitalpolicy.it> > Data: Lun, 12 Luglio 2010, 4:06 pm > A: "avv. Monica Alessia Senor" > <senor(a)penalistiassociati.it> > Cc: ugo.pagallo(a)unito.it > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > Cara Monica, > > puoi trovare una sintesi in inglese qui: > > http://www.bverfg.de/pressemitteilungen/bvg10-011en.html > > e un commento (tra i moltissimi, ma Rocco Bellanova è un > amico, dunque > in stile tipicamente italiano gli faccio pubblicità :) > qui: > > http://vortex.uvt.nl/TILTblog/?p=118 > > Puoi anche leggere la traduzione non ufficiale in inglese > della sentenza > della Corte Costituzionale rumena qui: > > > http://www.legi-internet.ro/english/jurisprudenta-it-romania/decizii-it/rom… > > Ciao, > > Andrea > > On 7/12/2010 3:52 PM, avv. Monica Alessia Senor wrote: >> A proposito della sentenza della Corte costituzionale >> tedesca, qualcuno ha >> il testo tradotto (non dico in italiano, ma almeno in >> inglese)? >> Grazie. >> Monica >> >> -----Messaggio originale----- >> Da: nexa-bounces(a)server-nexa.polito.it >> [mailto:nexa-bounces@server-nexa.polito.it] Per conto di >> ugo.pagallo(a)unito.it >> Inviato: lunedì 12 luglio 2010 15.10 >> A: andrea(a)digitalpolicy.it >> Cc: nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it >> Oggetto: Re: [nexa] Must-Read Empirical Study of 47 USC >> 230 Jurisprudence >> byDavid Ardia >> >> Caro Andrea, >> >> grazie (come sempre) per la segnalazione dello studio: >> al >> di là delle sue statistiche (il diavolo è nei dettagli), >> mi sembra sin d'ora confermata l'analisi fatta sul 230 >> DMCA. >> Questo mi consente di riprendere i (tre, in sostanza) >> punti da te avanzati nell'email di ieri. >> Sul primo ha risposto a sua volta Alessandro Mantelero, >> distinguendo tra "trattamento dei dati" e "percezione >> dell'illecito". Non vedo perché, come dici, "appare >> difficile sostenere che un 'data processor' non abbia >> una >> conoscenza attiva dei medesimi [dati]". Tutto sta a >> intendere cosa vuol dire "attivo" in un mondo in cui, >> come >> ricorda la sentenza Google/YouTube v Viacom dalla quale >> eravamo partiti, vengono caricati su YouTube 24 ore di >> video al minuto! Larry Lessig ha ricordato tre/quattro >> mesi fa su La Stampa come, almeno allo stato, non >> abbiamo >> certo la tecnologia per prevenire, diciamo, un reato di >> diffamazione... (da dove era viceversa partito il caso >> Google/Vividown). >> Secondo punto: affermi che il "data processor ha >> comunque >> certe responsabilità". E ci mancherebbe! Solo che NON >> sono >> quelle del dato controller! Per dirne una, non si tratta >> mai di sanzioni penali (come nel caso Google Vividown). >> Gira e rigira, il punto è sempre questo: ai fini della >> normativa sulla privacy (data protection), l'ISP >> 'processors' (nell'italiano della legge, sic!, risponde >> dei) dati immessi autonomamente dall'utente (e.g., user >> generated content), il quale ultimo dunque ne è l'unico >> titolare del trattamento, ovvero, come data controller. >> Ai >> fini della normativa sull'e-commerce, l'ISP non ha >> nessun >> obbligo di vigilanza. Ergo, quello che propongo è de >> iure >> condito, non condendo. L'ISP è 'data controller' >> (titolare >> del trattamento) con annesse responsabilità (anche >> penali): >> a) Nei rapporti contrattuali con i propri utenti; >> b) Quando viene attivato dall'autorità competente o ai >> sensi di legge; >> c) Quando tratta a fini propri e ulteriori le >> informazioni >> immesse dagli utenti, anche riguardo terzi. >> Infine, sul concetto di "informational >> self-determination" >> se ne è occupata, sempre lei!, di recente: Corte >> costituzionale tedesca, sentenza del 2 marzo 2010, 1 BvR >> 256/08. Siccome, come spesso capita col BVG, è una >> sentenza molto corposa, ne parliamo, se mai, con altra >> posta. >> Ciao a tutti, >> Ugo >>> >>> ------------------ Messaggio originale >>> ------------------- >>> Oggetto: [nexa] Must-Read Empirical Study of 47 USC 230 >>> Jurisprudence byDavid Ardia >>> Da: "Andrea Glorioso" <andrea(a)digitalpolicy.it> >>> Data: Lun, 12 Luglio 2010, 10:13 am >>> A: nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it >>> ---------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> Sempre su intermediari e responsabilità, a proposito >>> dei >>> "modello >>> americano": >>> >>> http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2010/06/ardias_empirica.htm >>> >>> Technology & Marketing Law Blog >>> >>> « Payment Service Providers May Be Liable for >>> Counterfeit >>> Website >>> Sales--Gucci v. Frontline | Main | Recent Anti-SLAPP >>> Developments » >>> June 30, 2010 >>> Must-Read Empirical Study of 47 USC 230 Jurisprudence >>> by >>> David Ardia >>> >>> By Eric Goldman >>> >>> David S. Ardia, Free Speech Savior or Shield for >>> Scoundrels: An >>> Empirical Study of Intermediary Immunity Under Section >>> 230 >>> of the >>> Communications Decency Act, 43 Loyola of Los Angeles >>> Law >>> Review 373 (2010) >>> >>> Let me start with the punchline: if you are interested >>> in >>> 47 USC 230 >>> jurisprudence (and let's face it, who isn't???), then >>> you >>> need to read >>> this article. In fact, clear your calendar for this >>> afternoon. Although >>> I am not completely sold on its conclusions, any cogent >>> discussion about >>> 47 USC 230 jurisprudential trendlines must acknowledge >>> this article. >>> >>> David Ardia directs the Citizen Media Law Project, a >>> frequent outlink on >>> this blog. He undertook the heroic (and some might say >>> ill-advised) task >>> of finding and coding 47 USC 230 cases--a total of 184 >>> decisions--and >>> then generating some statistical conclusions from the >>> dataset. This is >>> not a project I would have undertaken because empirical >>> research is such >>> a quagmire, but we as a community of 47 USC 230 >>> scholars >>> and >>> practitioners get the benefit of David's efforts. >>> >>> (I should note that David sent me a draft of this >>> article >>> last Fall, >>> which sat unread in my inbox for 3 months. I then sent >>> David an >>> extremely lengthy and detailed set of comments about a >>> week before his >>> final edits were due to the law review. Some of my >>> critiques are not >>> news to David, but he may not have had a chance to >>> fully >>> address them >>> based on my delayed feedback.) >>> >>> (I further note that I have not doublechecked Davids >>> dataset or coding. >>> For this post, I assume he did it correctly.) >>> >>> If you have limited time (the PDF is 134 pages), start >>> on >>> page 41 of the >>> PDF, which is where the empirical discussions heat up. >>> There is a lot to >>> discuss and explore, but I will highlight two >>> significant >>> statistical >>> conclusions. >>> >>> First, the paper calculates that 230 defendants win the >>> defense "only" >>> about 2/3 of the time, leading him to conclude that the >>> statute "has not >>> been the free pass many of its proponents claim and its >>> critics lament." >>> This is an interesting conclusion, but it leaves me >>> wondering how this >>> compares with the hypothetical calculation of cases >>> where >>> the 230 >>> defense should have failed vs. the situations where it >>> should have >>> succeeded. Still, I am one of the people who thinks 230 >>> is >>> a free pass >>> for defendants, so the successful batting average was >>> lower than I expected. >>> >>> Second, the paper makes the following assertion on page >>> 108: >>> >>> "many of the intermediaries that invoked section 230 >>> likely would not >>> have faced eventual liability under the common law >>> because >>> they lacked >>> knowledge of and editorial control over the third-party >>> content at issue >>> in the cases. Given this prediction, one might question >>> whether section >>> 230 is necessary." >>> >>> Whoa! This is an important and implicitly troubling >>> statement. The paper >>> is positing an alternative scenario where 230 doesn't >>> exist and arguing >>> that we might not notice a difference. Of course, we >>> know >>> that other >>> countries are having very different experiences with >>> UGC >>> due to the >>> 230's absence. At the same time, US common law still >>> differs from other >>> countries' laws, so perhaps the US common law's >>> trajectory >>> would have >>> reached a similar place. Having said that, for reasons >>> the >>> paper does >>> explore, we are better off for having the statutory >>> immunity than >>> relying on common law developments. Furthermore, 230s >>> real brilliance >>> is that it immunizes service providers *because they >>> exercise* editorial >>> control, which leads to better outcomes. >>> >>> I'll briefly mention two other stats that puzzled me. >>> >>> On page 59, the paper says: "in more than half of the >>> section 230 >>> decisions (58.8%), the speech at issue was not >>> published >>> anonymously." >>> Later, on page 115, the paper advances the inverse >>> stat: >>> "41.2% of the >>> decisions studied involved anonymous content." In >>> theory, >>> this means 40% >>> of cases involve primary tortfeasors who can't be >>> found, >>> but I'm >>> skeptical about this because successful online >>> anonymity >>> is really hard. >>> After all, the AutoAdmit authors thought they were >>> anonymous until they >>> were de-anonymized. For more, see Paul Ohm's paper on >>> reidentification. >>> >>> On page 117, the paper says "in more than half of the >>> cases (55%), the >>> content plaintiffs sued over was no longer available as >>> of >>> mid-2009," >>> which suggests plaintiffs can get content takedowns >>> despite 230 because >>> the service provider voluntarily helps or the author >>> takes >>> the content >>> down him/herself (or, in some cases, the court ordered >>> the >>> takedown). >>> This brought to mind the Ripoff Report's refusal to >>> remove >>> content at >>> the author's request, a relatively unique posture for >>> UGC >>> hosts. See >>> Blockowicz v. Williams. >>> >>> The paper gives me another reason to remind you that >>> SCU >>> will be hosting >>> a 47 USC 230 celebration on March 4, 2011, where I hope >>> we >>> will discuss >>> cutting-edge research on 230 like this paper. More >>> details >>> to come, but >>> mark your calendar now. If you are working on >>> 230-related >>> research that >>> you think might be appropriate to present at this >>> conference, please >>> contact me. >>> >>> UPDATE: David's CMLP blog post on his article. >>> ____________ >>> >>> The abstract: >>> >>> In the thirteen years since its enactment, section 230 >>> of >>> the >>> Communications Decency Act has become one of the most >>> important statutes >>> impacting online speech, as well as one of the most >>> intensely >>> criticized. In deceptively simple language, its >>> provisions >>> sweep away >>> the common laws distinction between publisher and >>> distributor >>> liability, granting operators of Web sites and other >>> interactive >>> computer services broad protection from claims based on >>> the speech of >>> third parties. Section 230 is of critical importance >>> because virtually >>> all speech that occurs on the Internet is facilitated >>> by >>> private >>> intermediaries that have a fragile commitment to the >>> speech they facilitate. >>> >>> This Article presents the first empirical study of the >>> section 230 case >>> law. It begins by providing a doctrinal overview of >>> common >>> law liability >>> for intermediaries, both online and offline, and >>> describes >>> how section >>> 230 modifies these doctrinal approaches. It then >>> systematically analyzes >>> the 184 decisions courts have issued since the >>> statutes >>> enactment. The >>> Article also examines how courts have applied section >>> 230, >>> finding that >>> judges have been haphazard in their approach to its >>> application. >>> >>> The Article closes by discussing the studys findings >>> and >>> by offering >>> some insights into how plaintiffs and defendants have >>> fared under >>> section 230. While section 230 has largely protected >>> intermediaries from >>> liability for third-party speech, it has not been the >>> free >>> pass many of >>> its proponents claim and its critics lament. More than >>> a >>> third of the >>> claims at issue in the cases survived a section 230 >>> defense. Even in >>> cases where the court dismissed the claims, >>> intermediaries >>> bore >>> liability in the form of litigation costs, and it took >>> courts, on >>> average, nearly a year to issue decisions addressing an >>> intermediarys >>> defense under section 230. >>> >>> Posted by Eric at June 30, 2010 08:38 AM | Derivative >>> Liability >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> nexa mailing list >>> nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it >>> https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> nexa mailing list >> nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it >> https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa >> >> >> >> > > >

July 12, 2010

Decisioni delle Corti Costituzionali tedesca e rumena sulla trasposizione della Direttiva "Data Retention" (Was: Re: R: Must-Read Empirical Study of 47 USC 230 Jurisprudence byDavid Ardia)

by Andrea Glorioso

Cara Monica, puoi trovare una sintesi in inglese qui: http://www.bverfg.de/pressemitteilungen/bvg10-011en.html e un commento (tra i moltissimi, ma Rocco Bellanova è un amico, dunque in stile tipicamente italiano gli faccio pubblicità :) qui: http://vortex.uvt.nl/TILTblog/?p=118 Puoi anche leggere la traduzione non ufficiale in inglese della sentenza della Corte Costituzionale rumena qui: http://www.legi-internet.ro/english/jurisprudenta-it-romania/decizii-it/rom… Ciao, Andrea On 7/12/2010 3:52 PM, avv. Monica Alessia Senor wrote: > A proposito della sentenza della Corte costituzionale tedesca, qualcuno ha > il testo tradotto (non dico in italiano, ma almeno in inglese)? > Grazie. > Monica > > -----Messaggio originale----- > Da: nexa-bounces(a)server-nexa.polito.it > [mailto:nexa-bounces@server-nexa.polito.it] Per conto di > ugo.pagallo(a)unito.it > Inviato: lunedì 12 luglio 2010 15.10 > A: andrea(a)digitalpolicy.it > Cc: nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > Oggetto: Re: [nexa] Must-Read Empirical Study of 47 USC 230 Jurisprudence > byDavid Ardia > > Caro Andrea, > > grazie (come sempre) per la segnalazione dello studio: al > di là delle sue statistiche (il diavolo è nei dettagli), > mi sembra sin d'ora confermata l'analisi fatta sul 230 > DMCA. > Questo mi consente di riprendere i (tre, in sostanza) > punti da te avanzati nell'email di ieri. > Sul primo ha risposto a sua volta Alessandro Mantelero, > distinguendo tra "trattamento dei dati" e "percezione > dell'illecito". Non vedo perché, come dici, "appare > difficile sostenere che un 'data processor' non abbia una > conoscenza attiva dei medesimi [dati]". Tutto sta a > intendere cosa vuol dire "attivo" in un mondo in cui, come > ricorda la sentenza Google/YouTube v Viacom dalla quale > eravamo partiti, vengono caricati su YouTube 24 ore di > video al minuto! Larry Lessig ha ricordato tre/quattro > mesi fa su La Stampa come, almeno allo stato, non abbiamo > certo la tecnologia per prevenire, diciamo, un reato di > diffamazione... (da dove era viceversa partito il caso > Google/Vividown). > Secondo punto: affermi che il "data processor ha comunque > certe responsabilità". E ci mancherebbe! Solo che NON sono > quelle del dato controller! Per dirne una, non si tratta > mai di sanzioni penali (come nel caso Google Vividown). > Gira e rigira, il punto è sempre questo: ai fini della > normativa sulla privacy (data protection), l'ISP > 'processors' (nell'italiano della legge, sic!, risponde > dei) dati immessi autonomamente dall'utente (e.g., user > generated content), il quale ultimo dunque ne è l'unico > titolare del trattamento, ovvero, come data controller. Ai > fini della normativa sull'e-commerce, l'ISP non ha nessun > obbligo di vigilanza. Ergo, quello che propongo è de iure > condito, non condendo. L'ISP è 'data controller' (titolare > del trattamento) con annesse responsabilità (anche > penali): > a) Nei rapporti contrattuali con i propri utenti; > b) Quando viene attivato dall'autorità competente o ai > sensi di legge; > c) Quando tratta a fini propri e ulteriori le informazioni > immesse dagli utenti, anche riguardo terzi. > Infine, sul concetto di "informational self-determination" > se ne è occupata, sempre lei!, di recente: Corte > costituzionale tedesca, sentenza del 2 marzo 2010, 1 BvR > 256/08. Siccome, come spesso capita col BVG, è una > sentenza molto corposa, ne parliamo, se mai, con altra > posta. > Ciao a tutti, > Ugo >> >> ------------------ Messaggio originale ------------------- >> Oggetto: [nexa] Must-Read Empirical Study of 47 USC 230 >> Jurisprudence byDavid Ardia >> Da: "Andrea Glorioso" <andrea(a)digitalpolicy.it> >> Data: Lun, 12 Luglio 2010, 10:13 am >> A: nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it >> ---------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Sempre su intermediari e responsabilità, a proposito dei >> "modello >> americano": >> >> http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2010/06/ardias_empirica.htm >> >> Technology & Marketing Law Blog >> >> « Payment Service Providers May Be Liable for Counterfeit >> Website >> Sales--Gucci v. Frontline | Main | Recent Anti-SLAPP >> Developments » >> June 30, 2010 >> Must-Read Empirical Study of 47 USC 230 Jurisprudence by >> David Ardia >> >> By Eric Goldman >> >> David S. Ardia, Free Speech Savior or Shield for >> Scoundrels: An >> Empirical Study of Intermediary Immunity Under Section 230 >> of the >> Communications Decency Act, 43 Loyola of Los Angeles Law >> Review 373 (2010) >> >> Let me start with the punchline: if you are interested in >> 47 USC 230 >> jurisprudence (and let's face it, who isn't???), then you >> need to read >> this article. In fact, clear your calendar for this >> afternoon. Although >> I am not completely sold on its conclusions, any cogent >> discussion about >> 47 USC 230 jurisprudential trendlines must acknowledge >> this article. >> >> David Ardia directs the Citizen Media Law Project, a >> frequent outlink on >> this blog. He undertook the heroic (and some might say >> ill-advised) task >> of finding and coding 47 USC 230 cases--a total of 184 >> decisions--and >> then generating some statistical conclusions from the >> dataset. This is >> not a project I would have undertaken because empirical >> research is such >> a quagmire, but we as a community of 47 USC 230 scholars >> and >> practitioners get the benefit of David's efforts. >> >> (I should note that David sent me a draft of this article >> last Fall, >> which sat unread in my inbox for 3 months. I then sent >> David an >> extremely lengthy and detailed set of comments about a >> week before his >> final edits were due to the law review. Some of my >> critiques are not >> news to David, but he may not have had a chance to fully >> address them >> based on my delayed feedback.) >> >> (I further note that I have not doublechecked David’s >> dataset or coding. >> For this post, I assume he did it “correctly.”) >> >> If you have limited time (the PDF is 134 pages), start on >> page 41 of the >> PDF, which is where the empirical discussions heat up. >> There is a lot to >> discuss and explore, but I will highlight two significant >> statistical >> conclusions. >> >> First, the paper calculates that 230 defendants win the >> defense "only" >> about 2/3 of the time, leading him to conclude that the >> statute "has not >> been the free pass many of its proponents claim and its >> critics lament." >> This is an interesting conclusion, but it leaves me >> wondering how this >> compares with the hypothetical calculation of cases where >> the 230 >> defense should have failed vs. the situations where it >> should have >> succeeded. Still, I am one of the people who thinks 230 is >> a free pass >> for defendants, so the successful batting average was >> lower than I expected. >> >> Second, the paper makes the following assertion on page >> 108: >> >> "many of the intermediaries that invoked section 230 >> likely would not >> have faced eventual liability under the common law because >> they lacked >> knowledge of and editorial control over the third-party >> content at issue >> in the cases. Given this prediction, one might question >> whether section >> 230 is necessary." >> >> Whoa! This is an important and implicitly troubling >> statement. The paper >> is positing an alternative scenario where 230 doesn't >> exist and arguing >> that we might not notice a difference. Of course, we know >> that other >> countries are having very different experiences with UGC >> due to the >> 230's absence. At the same time, US common law still >> differs from other >> countries' laws, so perhaps the US common law's trajectory >> would have >> reached a similar place. Having said that, for reasons the >> paper does >> explore, we are better off for having the statutory >> immunity than >> relying on common law developments. Furthermore, 230’s >> real brilliance >> is that it immunizes service providers *because they >> exercise* editorial >> control, which leads to better outcomes. >> >> I'll briefly mention two other stats that puzzled me. >> >> On page 59, the paper says: "in more than half of the >> section 230 >> decisions (58.8%), the speech at issue was not published >> anonymously." >> Later, on page 115, the paper advances the inverse stat: >> "41.2% of the >> decisions studied involved anonymous content." In theory, >> this means 40% >> of cases involve primary tortfeasors who can't be found, >> but I'm >> skeptical about this because successful online anonymity >> is really hard. >> After all, the AutoAdmit authors thought they were >> anonymous until they >> were de-anonymized. For more, see Paul Ohm's paper on >> reidentification. >> >> On page 117, the paper says "in more than half of the >> cases (55%), the >> content plaintiffs sued over was no longer available as of >> mid-2009," >> which suggests plaintiffs can get content takedowns >> despite 230 because >> the service provider voluntarily helps or the author takes >> the content >> down him/herself (or, in some cases, the court ordered the >> takedown). >> This brought to mind the Ripoff Report's refusal to remove >> content at >> the author's request, a relatively unique posture for UGC >> hosts. See >> Blockowicz v. Williams. >> >> The paper gives me another reason to remind you that SCU >> will be hosting >> a 47 USC 230 celebration on March 4, 2011, where I hope we >> will discuss >> cutting-edge research on 230 like this paper. More details >> to come, but >> mark your calendar now. If you are working on 230-related >> research that >> you think might be appropriate to present at this >> conference, please >> contact me. >> >> UPDATE: David's CMLP blog post on his article. >> ____________ >> >> The abstract: >> >> In the thirteen years since its enactment, section 230 of >> the >> Communications Decency Act has become one of the most >> important statutes >> impacting online speech, as well as one of the most >> intensely >> criticized. In deceptively simple language, its provisions >> sweep away >> the common law’s distinction between publisher and >> distributor >> liability, granting operators of Web sites and other >> interactive >> computer services broad protection from claims based on >> the speech of >> third parties. Section 230 is of critical importance >> because virtually >> all speech that occurs on the Internet is facilitated by >> private >> intermediaries that have a fragile commitment to the >> speech they facilitate. >> >> This Article presents the first empirical study of the >> section 230 case >> law. It begins by providing a doctrinal overview of common >> law liability >> for intermediaries, both online and offline, and describes >> how section >> 230 modifies these doctrinal approaches. It then >> systematically analyzes >> the 184 decisions courts have issued since the statute’s >> enactment. The >> Article also examines how courts have applied section 230, >> finding that >> judges have been haphazard in their approach to its >> application. >> >> The Article closes by discussing the study’s findings and >> by offering >> some insights into how plaintiffs and defendants have >> fared under >> section 230. While section 230 has largely protected >> intermediaries from >> liability for third-party speech, it has not been the free >> pass many of >> its proponents claim and its critics lament. More than a >> third of the >> claims at issue in the cases survived a section 230 >> defense. Even in >> cases where the court dismissed the claims, intermediaries >> bore >> liability in the form of litigation costs, and it took >> courts, on >> average, nearly a year to issue decisions addressing an >> intermediary’s >> defense under section 230. >> >> Posted by Eric at June 30, 2010 08:38 AM | Derivative >> Liability >> >> _______________________________________________ >> nexa mailing list >> nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it >> https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa >> > > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa > > > >

July 12, 2010

R: Must-Read Empirical Study of 47 USC 230 Jurisprudence byDavid Ardia

by avv. Monica Alessia Senor

A proposito della sentenza della Corte costituzionale tedesca, qualcuno ha il testo tradotto (non dico in italiano, ma almeno in inglese)? Grazie. Monica -----Messaggio originale----- Da: nexa-bounces(a)server-nexa.polito.it [mailto:nexa-bounces@server-nexa.polito.it] Per conto di ugo.pagallo(a)unito.it Inviato: lunedì 12 luglio 2010 15.10 A: andrea(a)digitalpolicy.it Cc: nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it Oggetto: Re: [nexa] Must-Read Empirical Study of 47 USC 230 Jurisprudence byDavid Ardia Caro Andrea, grazie (come sempre) per la segnalazione dello studio: al di là delle sue statistiche (il diavolo è nei dettagli), mi sembra sin d'ora confermata l'analisi fatta sul 230 DMCA. Questo mi consente di riprendere i (tre, in sostanza) punti da te avanzati nell'email di ieri. Sul primo ha risposto a sua volta Alessandro Mantelero, distinguendo tra "trattamento dei dati" e "percezione dell'illecito". Non vedo perché, come dici, "appare difficile sostenere che un 'data processor' non abbia una conoscenza attiva dei medesimi [dati]". Tutto sta a intendere cosa vuol dire "attivo" in un mondo in cui, come ricorda la sentenza Google/YouTube v Viacom dalla quale eravamo partiti, vengono caricati su YouTube 24 ore di video al minuto! Larry Lessig ha ricordato tre/quattro mesi fa su La Stampa come, almeno allo stato, non abbiamo certo la tecnologia per prevenire, diciamo, un reato di diffamazione... (da dove era viceversa partito il caso Google/Vividown). Secondo punto: affermi che il "data processor ha comunque certe responsabilità". E ci mancherebbe! Solo che NON sono quelle del dato controller! Per dirne una, non si tratta mai di sanzioni penali (come nel caso Google Vividown). Gira e rigira, il punto è sempre questo: ai fini della normativa sulla privacy (data protection), l'ISP 'processors' (nell'italiano della legge, sic!, risponde dei) dati immessi autonomamente dall'utente (e.g., user generated content), il quale ultimo dunque ne è l'unico titolare del trattamento, ovvero, come data controller. Ai fini della normativa sull'e-commerce, l'ISP non ha nessun obbligo di vigilanza. Ergo, quello che propongo è de iure condito, non condendo. L'ISP è 'data controller' (titolare del trattamento) con annesse responsabilità (anche penali): a) Nei rapporti contrattuali con i propri utenti; b) Quando viene attivato dall'autorità competente o ai sensi di legge; c) Quando tratta a fini propri e ulteriori le informazioni immesse dagli utenti, anche riguardo terzi. Infine, sul concetto di "informational self-determination" se ne è occupata, sempre lei!, di recente: Corte costituzionale tedesca, sentenza del 2 marzo 2010, 1 BvR 256/08. Siccome, come spesso capita col BVG, è una sentenza molto corposa, ne parliamo, se mai, con altra posta. Ciao a tutti, Ugo > > ------------------ Messaggio originale ------------------- > Oggetto: [nexa] Must-Read Empirical Study of 47 USC 230 > Jurisprudence byDavid Ardia > Da: "Andrea Glorioso" <andrea(a)digitalpolicy.it> > Data: Lun, 12 Luglio 2010, 10:13 am > A: nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > Sempre su intermediari e responsabilità, a proposito dei > "modello > americano": > > http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2010/06/ardias_empirica.htm > > Technology & Marketing Law Blog > > « Payment Service Providers May Be Liable for Counterfeit > Website > Sales--Gucci v. Frontline | Main | Recent Anti-SLAPP > Developments » > June 30, 2010 > Must-Read Empirical Study of 47 USC 230 Jurisprudence by > David Ardia > > By Eric Goldman > > David S. Ardia, Free Speech Savior or Shield for > Scoundrels: An > Empirical Study of Intermediary Immunity Under Section 230 > of the > Communications Decency Act, 43 Loyola of Los Angeles Law > Review 373 (2010) > > Let me start with the punchline: if you are interested in > 47 USC 230 > jurisprudence (and let's face it, who isn't???), then you > need to read > this article. In fact, clear your calendar for this > afternoon. Although > I am not completely sold on its conclusions, any cogent > discussion about > 47 USC 230 jurisprudential trendlines must acknowledge > this article. > > David Ardia directs the Citizen Media Law Project, a > frequent outlink on > this blog. He undertook the heroic (and some might say > ill-advised) task > of finding and coding 47 USC 230 cases--a total of 184 > decisions--and > then generating some statistical conclusions from the > dataset. This is > not a project I would have undertaken because empirical > research is such > a quagmire, but we as a community of 47 USC 230 scholars > and > practitioners get the benefit of David's efforts. > > (I should note that David sent me a draft of this article > last Fall, > which sat unread in my inbox for 3 months. I then sent > David an > extremely lengthy and detailed set of comments about a > week before his > final edits were due to the law review. Some of my > critiques are not > news to David, but he may not have had a chance to fully > address them > based on my delayed feedback.) > > (I further note that I have not doublechecked Davids > dataset or coding. > For this post, I assume he did it correctly.) > > If you have limited time (the PDF is 134 pages), start on > page 41 of the > PDF, which is where the empirical discussions heat up. > There is a lot to > discuss and explore, but I will highlight two significant > statistical > conclusions. > > First, the paper calculates that 230 defendants win the > defense "only" > about 2/3 of the time, leading him to conclude that the > statute "has not > been the free pass many of its proponents claim and its > critics lament." > This is an interesting conclusion, but it leaves me > wondering how this > compares with the hypothetical calculation of cases where > the 230 > defense should have failed vs. the situations where it > should have > succeeded. Still, I am one of the people who thinks 230 is > a free pass > for defendants, so the successful batting average was > lower than I expected. > > Second, the paper makes the following assertion on page > 108: > > "many of the intermediaries that invoked section 230 > likely would not > have faced eventual liability under the common law because > they lacked > knowledge of and editorial control over the third-party > content at issue > in the cases. Given this prediction, one might question > whether section > 230 is necessary." > > Whoa! This is an important and implicitly troubling > statement. The paper > is positing an alternative scenario where 230 doesn't > exist and arguing > that we might not notice a difference. Of course, we know > that other > countries are having very different experiences with UGC > due to the > 230's absence. At the same time, US common law still > differs from other > countries' laws, so perhaps the US common law's trajectory > would have > reached a similar place. Having said that, for reasons the > paper does > explore, we are better off for having the statutory > immunity than > relying on common law developments. Furthermore, 230s > real brilliance > is that it immunizes service providers *because they > exercise* editorial > control, which leads to better outcomes. > > I'll briefly mention two other stats that puzzled me. > > On page 59, the paper says: "in more than half of the > section 230 > decisions (58.8%), the speech at issue was not published > anonymously." > Later, on page 115, the paper advances the inverse stat: > "41.2% of the > decisions studied involved anonymous content." In theory, > this means 40% > of cases involve primary tortfeasors who can't be found, > but I'm > skeptical about this because successful online anonymity > is really hard. > After all, the AutoAdmit authors thought they were > anonymous until they > were de-anonymized. For more, see Paul Ohm's paper on > reidentification. > > On page 117, the paper says "in more than half of the > cases (55%), the > content plaintiffs sued over was no longer available as of > mid-2009," > which suggests plaintiffs can get content takedowns > despite 230 because > the service provider voluntarily helps or the author takes > the content > down him/herself (or, in some cases, the court ordered the > takedown). > This brought to mind the Ripoff Report's refusal to remove > content at > the author's request, a relatively unique posture for UGC > hosts. See > Blockowicz v. Williams. > > The paper gives me another reason to remind you that SCU > will be hosting > a 47 USC 230 celebration on March 4, 2011, where I hope we > will discuss > cutting-edge research on 230 like this paper. More details > to come, but > mark your calendar now. If you are working on 230-related > research that > you think might be appropriate to present at this > conference, please > contact me. > > UPDATE: David's CMLP blog post on his article. > ____________ > > The abstract: > > In the thirteen years since its enactment, section 230 of > the > Communications Decency Act has become one of the most > important statutes > impacting online speech, as well as one of the most > intensely > criticized. In deceptively simple language, its provisions > sweep away > the common laws distinction between publisher and > distributor > liability, granting operators of Web sites and other > interactive > computer services broad protection from claims based on > the speech of > third parties. Section 230 is of critical importance > because virtually > all speech that occurs on the Internet is facilitated by > private > intermediaries that have a fragile commitment to the > speech they facilitate. > > This Article presents the first empirical study of the > section 230 case > law. It begins by providing a doctrinal overview of common > law liability > for intermediaries, both online and offline, and describes > how section > 230 modifies these doctrinal approaches. It then > systematically analyzes > the 184 decisions courts have issued since the statutes > enactment. The > Article also examines how courts have applied section 230, > finding that > judges have been haphazard in their approach to its > application. > > The Article closes by discussing the studys findings and > by offering > some insights into how plaintiffs and defendants have > fared under > section 230. While section 230 has largely protected > intermediaries from > liability for third-party speech, it has not been the free > pass many of > its proponents claim and its critics lament. More than a > third of the > claims at issue in the cases survived a section 230 > defense. Even in > cases where the court dismissed the claims, intermediaries > bore > liability in the form of litigation costs, and it took > courts, on > average, nearly a year to issue decisions addressing an > intermediarys > defense under section 230. > > Posted by Eric at June 30, 2010 08:38 AM | Derivative > Liability > > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa > _______________________________________________ nexa mailing list nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa

July 12, 2010