Web 2.0 - Should the site owner be held accountable for user submissions?

[StuartD]

With latest additions to the copyright lawsuit against google/youtube: http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-6...ml?tag=nl.e550

And the use of comments on blogs, message boards, torrents on torrent sites, entries on info sites such as wiki sites.... and so on....

The law is having trouble keeping up, as far as I can tell. It's not easy to track down individual users who say something they shouldn't, share something they shouldn't or.. just do something they shouldn't.

How much responsibility do you feel the site owner should have?
None? They didn't do or say the things.
Some? They do provide the forum to allow such things.
All? It's their property on which the offensive material is on.

[who]

Well should the person who founded a city be responsible for what the citizens do in that city?

[Libertine]

It all depends.

Let's say you have a forum. If someone posts an illegal picture or whatever, and immediately gets banned and reported to the law, obviously the site owner should not be held responsible.

On the other hand, if someone creates "pedotube" and doesn't moderate the vids posted, he should spend the next few centuries in prison.

[Simon IA Cash]

Originally Posted by who

Well should the person who founded a city be responsible for what the citizens do in that city?

No. But it's not the founder, it's the mayor, the person who RUNS the place, who matters anyway. The mayor indeed has a responsibility to crack down on crime. When crimes go unpunished, the mayor is, to a degree, responsible, since he's at the top of city matters. Cities also make sure people register and make their presence in the city known, as residents of at least the state/province. The real world doesn't have the same anonymity as online, with respect to crime.

Thanks for that example, though, really clarifies the point.

[Jace]

i think it is a case by case basis

if you come across a place like gfy where it is basically like the wild wild west, with no moderators and new users signing up every second, there should be some leeway given to the owners

but if it is like gg&j where there is a heavy moderator presence and every thread is being watched for rule breaking, then yeah, they should be held accountable

[pornguy]

Originally Posted by Simon IA Cash

No. But it's not the founder, it's the mayor, the person who RUNS the place, who matters anyway. The mayor indeed has a responsibility to crack down on crime. When crimes go unpunished, the mayor is, to a degree, responsible, since he's at the top of city matters. Cities also make sure people register and make their presence in the city known, as residents of at least the state/province. The real world doesn't have the same anonymity as online, with respect to crime.

Thanks for that example, though, really clarifies the point.

This is a nice dream, and will never happen. The Mayor will tell you that it is up to the Attorney General, State attorney or what ever. The Mayor will also say that it is the fault of the Chief of Police or the fault of the sheriff One way or another they just blame the other.

[Simon IA Cash]

Originally Posted by Jace

i think it is a case by case basis

if you come across a place like gfy where it is basically like the wild wild west, with no moderators and new users signing up every second, there should be some leeway given to the owners

but if it is like gg&j where there is a heavy moderator presence and every thread is being watched for rule breaking, then yeah, they should be held accountable

No offense man, I appreciate your work and think you contribute much to the adult world, but doesn't that miss the point? Why should gg&j be punished precisely because they put an effort into moderating? I think that if your sites get big enough that moderation becomes a problem, then you have a responsibility to keep track of it, hire more people, do what it takes. Hiding behind an open policy doesn't absolve you from anything, it's having your cake and eating it too, getting free reign to grow while accepting no responsibility. It's still your site, at the end of the day, and it's the flip-side of having user-generated content. You don't have to create the content; the least you could do is watch it!

And pornguy, if you take your point back to the web world, there's no equivalent. The webmaster is at the top of the chain, no bones about it. Make your users register with their real info and bite the bullet if you want the user to take responsibility. Someone's gotta take it.

[Jace]

Originally Posted by Simon IA Cash

No offense man, I appreciate your work and think you contribute much to the adult world, but doesn't that miss the point? Why should gg&j be punished precisely because they put an effort into moderating? I think that if your sites get big enough that moderation becomes a problem, then you have a responsibility to keep track of it, hire more people, do what it takes. Hiding behind an open policy doesn't absolve you from anything, it's having your cake and eating it too, getting free reign to grow while accepting no responsibility. It's still your site, at the end of the day, and it's the flip-side of having user-generated content. You don't have to create the content; the least you could do is watch it!

And pornguy, if you take your point back to the web world, there's no equivalent. The webmaster is at the top of the chain, no bones about it. Make your users register with their real info and bite the bullet if you want the user to take responsibility. Someone's gotta take it.

oh, i think it totally is crazy, but there has already been forum lawsuits about this exact thing, and the end result was that if a forum is run without moderation and deleting posts then the forum owners are not held liable for what is posted...but once they start moderating heavily and deleting posts/topics that is when they become ultimately responsible for the content on their site

the more i think about the more I am of the opinion that if you own the site you should be responsible for everything posted on that site....just seems fair that way

[StuartD]

So do you think that Google will get their ass handed to them for all of the videos on Youtube?

[rayzor]

"All" is winning so far? I'm surprised! You're all on fuckin GFY! There is tons of questionable, copyrighted material posted everyday! If you think GFY should be responsible, you better get the fuck out of here!

I chose "some". Some "good faith" attempt should be made to moderate. Obviously if your site is too big, it can be impossible to moderate and remove illegal material. If a user reports it, it should be their responsibility to remove it.

[Simon IA Cash]

Originally Posted by rayzor

"All" is winning so far? I'm surprised! You're all on fuckin GFY! There is tons of questionable, copyrighted material posted everyday! If you think GFY should be responsible, you better get the fuck out of here!

I chose "some". Some "good faith" attempt should be made to moderate. Obviously if your site is too big, it can be impossible to moderate and remove illegal material. If a user reports it, it should be their responsibility to remove it.

If not GFY, then who? Should anybody be responsible, since no one here's using their real names (except for maybe Paul Markham, so maybe you can blame him)

No site is impossible to moderate. Any site that's big enough to have these issues probably has enough capital to pay some more moderators. Google can't afford it? Doesn't have the means? My ass.

[Simon IA Cash]

Originally Posted by pornopete

No. Should the government be responsible for some lunatic yelling profanity on the street?

The municipal government, and its police are responsible to do something about it, if he's doing something illegal. And of course that guy himself is responsible, but you know who he is, don't you, unlike on a web 2.0 site. Make people register with their real names, problem solved.

[BradM]

Great poll. Its the owners responsibility to keep track of user records (IP etc) and hand it over when requested if required by law. So the site owner is responsible from that stance. However outside of that... squat.

[Mutt]

you are right - the courts and legislators are just too far behind on what's going on - and it's been a perfect time for the owners of these user generated content sites to make a fucking fortune at the expense of the people who actually own and produce the content. It's wrong - everybody knows it's wrong and the courts and legislators will catch up eventually.
I pray the Google/YouTube case isn's settled out of court - I want to see this argued in court and a precedent set. If the plaintiffs lose this case and that's possible it would be a nightmare - might as well just join the crowd and do your own PornoTube sites and slap the dating and cam site ads up cuz there will be no market for anything but that in adult.

[Matt 26z]

Originally Posted by Simon IA Cash

Make people register with their real names, problem solved.

How are you going to implement this? Require credit card data at every single site that user interaction is possible? What about foreign websites?

True identify confermation would cripple the internet overnight. It would be too much of a burden on users.

Besides, do you really want there to be a law that a 16yo webmaster in Nigeria has to take your credit card details before you can post on his board?

[tiger]

Case by case basis and owner would have to be clearly aware of the situation and refuse to take action in order to be responsible.

[Jace]

Originally Posted by Simon IA Cash

If not GFY, then who? Should anybody be responsible, since no one here's using their real names (except for maybe Paul Markham, so maybe you can blame him)

No site is impossible to moderate. Any site that's big enough to have these issues probably has enough capital to pay some more moderators. Google can't afford it? Doesn't have the means? My ass.

hey now, I use my real name

Jace Byers

nothing to hide

[StuartD]

Originally Posted by Jace

hey now, I use my real name

Jace Byers

nothing to hide

You and me both.

[FakeNick]

yes they should be and they are under contributary copyright law especially if they are told to remove it and ultimately dont