Robert Niles, editor of the Online Journalism Review, posted a helpful article today about updating website Terms of Use in order to minimize inter-user abuse and conflict. He advocates telling users in plain language what rules the website expects them to follow when they post comments and suggests rules prohibiting impersonation, offline harassment, and the creation of multiple unlinked user accounts. He also recommends that websites adopt explicit rules setting forth the parameters for permitted commercial solicitation (if any). His remarks on impersonation are worth excerpting in full:

Insist that readers be who they are, and not attempt to pass themselves off as someone else. If you[r] site allows pseudonymous posting, insist that readers use a consistent handle or account name, and take whatever technical steps you can to keep people from posting under others' names.

Don't allow readers to mislead others about their identity, either. Warn readers against omitting information from their profiles or posts that would lead other readers to believe that they are someone other than who they are. Elected officials shouldn't be allowed to pretend that they are not when posting to a discussion about local politics, to use the Telegraph's example.

These recommendations are important from a practical, ethical perspective more so than from a legal perspective because CDA 230 (47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1)) gives website operators immunity for publishing content submitted by others under most circumstances. From this practical, ethical perspective, however, I agree wholeheartedly with Niles. There is a difference between respecting and promoting a user's ability to engage in anonymous speech and allowing a user to mislead others and manipulate the tools put at his/her disposal. Perhaps a Term prohibiting impersonation would be hard to enforce (maybe not?) -- at the very least, a Term of this kind puts users on notice about what kind of community you want to create and makes a statement about engaging in speech and debate responsibly.

In late August, Volkswagen obtained a subpoena from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No.3:07-MC-80213) requiring YouTube to disclose the identity of an anonymous YouTube user who posted a Nazi-themed parody of a Volkswagen commercial. The video has apparently been removed from YouTube and is no longer available.

Written by Kyle Junik, CMLP Intern

Brad Spitz reports in his blog that a French court held DailyMotion liable for copyright infringement, despite concluding that the site was a mere "hosting service." DailyMotion is an online video-sharing site similar to YouTube. In a July 13 ruling (in French), the court went out of its way to label DailyMotion a hosting service, an argument DailyMotion itself put forth. In France, hosting services typically enjoy a safe harbor from the infringing acts of users under the French Act of 21 June 2004 on Confidence in the Digital Environment (in French). The Act implements the European Commission directive on electronic commerce and states in part:

Where an information society service is provided that consists of the storage of information provided by a recipient of the service, Member States shall ensure that the service provider is not liable for the information stored at the request of a recipient of the service, on condition that:

(a) the provider does not have actual knowledge of illegal activity or information and, as regards claims for damages, is not aware of facts or circumstances from which illegal activity or information is apparent; and
(b) the provider, upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove or to disable access to the information.

The court found DailyMotion was aware of the infringing content, in part because the site deliberately furnished the users with the means to commit the acts of infringement. The court stated that the Act's limitation on liability is not available when the infringing activities are created or induced by the provider itself. DailyMotion has appealed.

Notably, the language of the French Act is almost identical to the safe-harbor provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) codified at 17 U.S.C. Sec. 512(c). Google (on behalf of its popular video-sharing site, YouTube) frequently invokes the DMCA safe-harbor provisions as a defense to copyright infringement claims brought against it. At the end of the day, the French court ruling has no direct effect on any U.S. court's interpretation of the DMCA, but it may cause Google to reassess its stance on its liability via YouTube.