Comment Re:Raising a ruckus... (Score 1) 215
Unfortunately the Demon libel out-of-court settlement has sent subtle shockwaves across the UK ISP industry. The Netbenefit decision may well have been influenced by the Demon settlement.
As an IT Manager of a UK ISP I've had to think carefully since Demon settled.
I disagree with CodeShark though that the Demon case decision was bad. Demon were not sued by a "bigmouthed person". Demon were asked by a customer (meaning there was a contract in place between the 2 parties) to take down false information. Demon decided to ignore this request and not respond thus showing no concern for someone they provide service for.
We're Internet SERVICE Providers and we all owe a duty of care to our customers. Remember that everyone reading slashdot takes service from an ISP in someway (directly or through another company) and I'm sure that everyone would not want false information presented by those same people.
I certainly don't worry about being sued as an ISP but I do worry about treating customers with respect.
CodeShark suggests following the path of issuing a counter sue but have you ever read the Terms & Conditions you have with an ISP?. I suggest looking at these carefully since it probably includes a clause allowing the ISP to stop service at any time without reason. I'm not going to argue the morals of this but we work in an industry where the legal world has no idea how to approach the Internet. The majority of Judges have no experience with the online community and try and apply outdated laws that rely on boundries where we have no boundries.
I'm do feel sorry for Outrage and hope that slashdot community can create that "ruckus". I don't want to judge Netbenefit without their side of the story but thanks to Emmett for an informative piece of journalism.
D98
As an IT Manager of a UK ISP I've had to think carefully since Demon settled.
I disagree with CodeShark though that the Demon case decision was bad. Demon were not sued by a "bigmouthed person". Demon were asked by a customer (meaning there was a contract in place between the 2 parties) to take down false information. Demon decided to ignore this request and not respond thus showing no concern for someone they provide service for.
We're Internet SERVICE Providers and we all owe a duty of care to our customers. Remember that everyone reading slashdot takes service from an ISP in someway (directly or through another company) and I'm sure that everyone would not want false information presented by those same people.
I certainly don't worry about being sued as an ISP but I do worry about treating customers with respect.
CodeShark suggests following the path of issuing a counter sue but have you ever read the Terms & Conditions you have with an ISP?. I suggest looking at these carefully since it probably includes a clause allowing the ISP to stop service at any time without reason. I'm not going to argue the morals of this but we work in an industry where the legal world has no idea how to approach the Internet. The majority of Judges have no experience with the online community and try and apply outdated laws that rely on boundries where we have no boundries.
I'm do feel sorry for Outrage and hope that slashdot community can create that "ruckus". I don't want to judge Netbenefit without their side of the story but thanks to Emmett for an informative piece of journalism.
D98
