|
If ISPs can be found liable for content posted by their users, what makes you so certain that the same could never happen to mud owners?
: "Ruling on a pre-trial motion, the court found that an Internet service provider can be sued for libel, and that any transmission by a service provider of a defamatory posting constituted a publication under defamation law."
: "In a decision that could have a chilling effect on online auctioneers, Internet service providers and e-commerce companies, a German judge has ruled that AOL Germany violated copyright law by taking no action to prevent subscribers from swapping pirated digital music files."
You might also find , which points out that ISPs in the United States generally have better protection. In this for example, it was determined that "...AOL is not liable for the statements made by a subscriber in an AOL chat room" (although they still had to fight it out in court, which is more than most mud owners can afford to do).
There is also , which touches on the concepts of contributory infringement and vicariously liability, and also makes a brief mention of Prodigy (which was held responsible for the statements of its customer because of its strict moderation policies) and CompuServe (which avoided liability because it made no attempt to monitor or control discussions).
Please note that I am not saying muds will be held liable for the actions of their players. However I personally believe it is within the realm of possibility that such a legal case could one day occur, and therefore find such legal cases like this of interest. I posted it on the off-chance that someone else might find it of interest as well.
|