French ISP responsible of "all content" 69
Farid writes "
This has ben published by one one the major french news papers.
A court has ruled against www.altern.org, a free hosting site, because someone put in his site nude photos of "Estelle Hallyday" a famous french model. The court thinks that the provider is responsible for "all the content of it's site", the provider say he can't control 30 000 sites !
Iris a french association for the promtion of freedom on the net has lauched a campaign against this
ruling."
Wow... (Score:1)
the stupidity race.
Come on! (Score:1)
- A.P.
--
"One World, One Web, One Program" - Microsoft Promotional Ad
Try Bablefish (Score:1)
"We had to destroy the net in order to save it." (Score:1)
umm...if the french fear expression then how come they have so many nude beaches?? i think they are just being french in this case... angry cause they have lost so many wars...who gives a damn...
Perdu: un clue. (Score:1)
--
N'est pas aux Etats Unis? (Score:1)
American judges (and the Supreme Court, and Congress, and law enforcement, and the Drug Czar, and Clinto-Stud, and ...) could use a visit from the Clue Fairy, too :)
--
It's being tried here in etats-unis too (Score:1)
I wonder if pro-choice advocates might start doing something similar to let people know who the people are that are inciting people to violence and harrassment. Maybe if they started writing down the plate numbers of the pro-lifers and posting them along with a list of doctors and patients who have been harrassed or killed, the lifers might get the point that it's not so much fun to be on the receiving end.
If they want the law changed, then they need to take it to washington. Until then, the people they are harrassing and killing are law abiding citizens and don't deserve to be harrassed or killed. Yeah you can dislike them or even hate them, but you shouldn't be able to incite violence against them.
same here in Portugal (Score:1)
Yeah, for the moment. It'll probably go away in the name of the war on drugs or common decency, or to protect the children or some other idiotic reason. Just give it time. I have lost most of what little faith I had in the government to get things right. If they screw up a few more times I think I'll have to find someplace else to live. That'll be tough. Too many screwed up places. US policy decisions seem to be contagious too.
Actually, no (Score:1)
Unfortunately, if you cannot express yourself anonymously, you can't be free of persecution. Governments persecute people for speaking their mind all the time. How can you be guaranteed the right to speak your mind freely without some way of protecting that right? I bet if someone decided they didn't like the French government and gave people a bunch of reasons why, the government would see that site shut down real quick. Again, it happens all the time. Maybe not as often in some countries as in others, but the point is that there is no guarantee of free speech.
"We had to destroy the net in order to save it." (Score:1)
If upheld, it will do alot of damage to the smaller French ISPs. (Which may be what the French phone company wants in the first place...)
Looks like many people missed the point (Score:1)
Estelle (nonstanding what you think of her) has the *right* to sue to protect her "image".
And someone *has* to be responsible for content. Just imagine another case, child porn or whatever. Do you think it should be allowed, since none is responsible ? Even libertarians among us should say no.
It seems that the problem is that you could open an account on the server anonymously. So since justice couldn't sue the poster (who is the real guilty man in this history if you ask me), they sue the hosting site.
Morality: now in France, you can open free sites, people can say what they want as far as they take their responsabilities, but you cannot open anonymous free sites if you don't plan de revue content before it goes online.
(And 400 000 FF is a huge ammount of money for a free site; I understand the motive, but it's one or two orders of magnitude too much imho; Valentin doesn't look like a bad guy after all, just a bit too naive).
Looks like many people missed the point (Score:1)
From what I've read those were "private" pictures, and I interpret that as pictures of the person, not the model.
> (not to mention wife of Johnny Hallyday, no?)
Daughter, afaik.
>
Maybe it's just me, but I think one person can have many images; She's got a professionnal image (owned by her model agency ?), but that doesn't deny her from having the right for privacy, that is the right to protect her intimate image.
The case is not very clear, but again, I don't think it's that _specific_ case that is really important.
I thought the Puritans came from England... (Score:1)
I say tax all religions for the mafiaso they are. That should keep them distracted long enough that we evolve into a Star Trek utopia of the future, rather than some depressing episode of Paradox.
I wish America got the criminals and Australia got the Puritans (and promptly burned them).
"If she weighs less than a duck, she's a witch!"
Can anyone translate this? (Score:1)
Cheers.
-- SG
Yeah, it was Italy. (Score:1)
And let's not forget the Maginot Line.
"Hey! *This'll* keep the German Army out!"
Cheers.
-- SG
This is terrible... (Score:1)
Altern provided free fast email (POP3/SMTP) until some spamming assholes took advantage of them. They didn't show any ads on the web pages, they didn't add anything to email messages. Their admin pages didn't have any ads either. In fact, there wasn't a single image on any admin page. To open an account, all that was required was a username and a password. They didn't get a single penny.. err centime out of hosting lamers like me.
Just more proof that the world is ruled by assholes and flaming morons.
---
Use altavista.com (Score:1)
---
Perdu: un clue. (Score:1)
Or it could be viewed as being similar to a bar being responsible for people who drink teh the point of extreme intoxication on the premises. Since there is no expectation of privacy when you put up a web page there is nothing stopping the "landlord" from looking in to make sure you're not selling drugs out of your apartment.
"We had to destroy the net in order to save it." (Score:1)
Not at all. If anything this will hurt the larger ISPs. Small providers will have no problem keeping an eye on the content of a couple of hundred sites but a large provider (like, say, the phone company) would have to hire dozens of full-time people to monitor 30 000 sites.
Perdu: un clue. (Score:1)
The difference is that when you rent an apartment there is an expectation of privacy which prevents the owner from doing searches for illegal activity whic is why they are not responsible in this case. If, however, the renter rented a street display window and committed crimes from it then the owner would be responsible. It may be difficult to police but then I suppose the point is that only responsible people should be in the business of providing - not just any dip with a trunk line.
*mis*educated? (Score:1)
No national attack please (Score:1)
Thanks for slowing the German advance for all of three weeks in WWII
Thanks for deciding to join WWI in the last few months and WWII in Europe in the last two years.
I'm a big fan of "Vichy" France
I'm a big fan of McCarthyism
Wasn't it an Exocet missle fired from a Mirage jet that the French sold to Iraq which almost sank the USS Stark?
Weren't the rest of Iraq's arms largely bought from the US?
Those Tomcat pilots really appreciated your denial to fly through your airspace on their way to bomb the crap out of Libya
I'm sure the civilians that were getting bombed because your president got his cock sucked really appreciated it too.
*mis*educated? (Score:1)
The word "miseducated" does not exist - perhaps you meant "uneducated" or even "poorly educated."
I'm okay, you're not (Score:1)
Where in the article is the line "and the person who put the page up is getting away scot-free"? Nowhere - that's because it's not happening. The person who put the page up is getting prosectuted, but so is the company that turned a blind eye (or didn't bother to turn an eye at all) to what he was doing with the public and open
Why not blame the phone company then for transmitting the images? It would make just as much sense.
NO, it wouldn't. The service that the phone company provides is one which is protected by privacy laws. Since the telco has no way to monitor what goes over its lines it cannot be held responsible under the law. Obviously something that is made public (like, say a webpage) isn't protected under privacy laws and the provider therefore had the responsibility to ensure that what was being made public was not illegal. It is exactly the same, under the law, as the owner of public advertising boards being responsible to make sure that the person who rents the board does not put something pornographic or hate-based on it.
How do you propose that ISPs should go about policing millions of web pages
How many ISPs do you know of that have millions (or even hundreds of thousands) of subscribers. Not too many - only the big suckers like AOL or MSN. They would suffer, but then they can afford to hire a dozen people to check out web accounts fulltime. The smaller ISPs wouldn't have a problem at all since the vast majority of subscribers don't even have web pages.
Do you have even an inkling of the magnitude of effort that would require?
Of course I do, you like tit. I own and operate an ISP.
The Last Word, one hopes (Score:1)
Judge miseducated? (Score:1)
I think it's crazy, and the only logical explanation I can think of is that the judge doesn't quite understand how the deal works.
Hahahah (Score:1)
Finally, a time and a place to stick it to the Frenchies. Atleast in the US ISPs are protected from such liability by the CDA (the portions that were not struck down).
No national attack please (Score:1)
we managed to suppress death penalty in contrast
with (most of) the US and that is an achievement
of another magnitude compared to the responsability of a Web site...
God Administrator (Score:1)
They must think the administrators there are some kind of gods if they can watch over all the content on 30,000 sites. That's just crazy. Hopefully this ruling will be reversed, I just can't see how this is 'right', then again, not everything is 'right' either. This is like saying that Rob would be responsible for all the posts on /., which I'm sure is why we have that little ' All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-99 Rob Malda.' disclaimer on the bottom of every page, sigh.
:)
My site contains 100% GPL'd source code
It's being tried here in etats-unis too (Score:1)
Now I'm as pro-choice as the next guy, but public records are public records are public records, whether you look through a folder at the DMV, or whether you do a search through Compuserve. Individuals ought to be able to opt out of having this information available. In fact, they can opt out in Florida, but Florida does not tell people that they can. In Massachusetts, they changed the law recently so that only cops, courts, and private eyes can get the info.
Is it the telephone company's fault when someone gets harassing phone calls? Only if they screwed up and divulged an unlisted number. Why should Compuserve, or especially little ISPs, get in trouble over content?
It's being tried here in etats-unis too (Score:1)
GOVERNMENT RECORDS in the name of STALKING is "free speech".
Oh, I absolutely agree that abusing government records and stalking in the name of free speech is apalling. But should the clinic be suing Compuserve ???
Get the page owner to pay (Score:1)
France (Score:1)
Damn those laywers (Score:1)
I just hope that someone manages to over-turn this ruling!
Major Contribution of France (Score:1)
Hey ! Those were invented in Belgium !
A Belgian citizen
No national attack please (Score:1)
While I'm on my anti-French rant:
1. Thanks for slowing the German advance for all of three weeks in WWII.
2. I'm a big fan of "Vichy" France.
3. Wasn't it an Exocet missle fired from a Mirage jet that the French sold to Iraq which almost sank the USS Stark?
4. Those Tomcat pilots really appreciated your denial to fly through your airspace on their way to bomb the crap out of Libya.
5. We've been appreciating your nearly constant threat of your Security Council veto. I know you must have a buttload of military hardware your itching to sell to Iraq once the sanctions are lifted.
Hey, with allies like you, who needs enemies?
No national attack please (Score:1)
No national attack please (Score:1)
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004619.html
Are you then telling me that the U.S. sent 15,000,000 men to the Pacific theatre for island hopping campaigns?
Geez.
No national attack please (Score:1)
Some indication of the magnitude of the responsibilities they carried is apparent from the fact that late in the war General Bradley as commander of the 12th Army Group had under his command four field armies, 12 corps, and 48 divisions, more than 1,300,000 men, the largest exclusively American field command in U.S. history.
#####################################
Hmmm. It appears the peak strength of Canada was only 780,000. Therefore, the Americans exceeded in a single command the entire Canadian contingent in World War II.
http://www.grolier.com/wwii/wwii_16.html
I personally don't want to downplay Canada's participation in World War II, but I'm not going to stand by and let you spew unsubstantiated crap while trying to belittle the U.S's contribution to the war effort.
In fact, I didn't have to look hard to find out this information. I suggest you do so in the future.
No national attack please (Score:1)
Not only did I debunk your original assertion, but it is quite clear that I was only referring to a +single+ command.
Geez.
No national attack please (Score:1)
Are you saying that the U.K., Canada, remenants of the French, Dutch, Belgian armies, while leaving the vast majority of the heavy material behind at Dunkirk, could have successfully launched the D-Day invasion?
Give me a break, I think the U.S. represented one big friggin straw.
Please drop the Napoleon complex it just makes you look like an idiot.
The photos are HERE !! (Score:1)
http://members.xoom.com/est_hal/
In fact, this is a lawyer case. They are a pool of lawyers that know a bit about the internet (when their colleagues don't) and its "juridic holes", and they make money out of it.
Previously they sued and won a child who had put online a JavaScrip version of Raymond Queneau's "cent mille milliards de poèmes".
Now, my site is stuck here, as ftp's are down too.
:-(
Pour les gens qui ne parlent pas francais... (Score:1)
Sorry for any errors in this translation. Please support altern.org, as I also heve a web site there. The member who's site is in question should be held responsible, not the provider.
Not what it seems... (Score:1)