FYI, Bloomberg BusinessWeek published TODAY a 3,200-word article by Felix Gillette entitled
"Section 230 Was Supposed to Make the Internet a Better Place. It Failed"
|
Tony Patti |
|
|
CIO |
|
|
|
|
|
t: (215) 867-8401
|
|
|
f: (215) 268-7184 |
|
-----Original Message-----
From: NANOG <nanog-bounces@nanog.org> On Behalf Of Mel Beckman
Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2019 11:36 PM
To: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: What can ISPs do better? Removing racism out of internet
John,
Please reread my comments. I did not say “carriers” and specifically excluded the FCC’s definition. I said “Common Carriers”, as defined by Common Law. The DMCA asserts that they must operate as CCs under this definition: in order to
get protection under Safe Harbor they must function as a “passive conduit” of information.
-mel via cell
> On Aug 6, 2019, at 7:36 PM, John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
>
> In article <6956E76B-E6B7-409F-A636-C7607BFD881C@beckman.org> you write:
>> Mehmet,
>>
>> I’m not sure if you understand the terms under which ISPs operate as “common carriers”, and thus enjoy immunity from lawsuits due to the acts of their customers.
>
> ISPs in the U.S. are not carriers and never have been. Even the ISPs
> that are subsidaries of telcos, which are common carriers for their
> telco operations, are not common carriers for their ISPs.
>
> This should not come as surprise to anyone who's spent 15 minutes
> looking at the relevant law.
>
> ISPs are probably protected by
47 USC 230(c)(1) but all of the case
> law I know is related to web sites or hosting providers.
>
>