5 ms·

Your example is different, because the isp in question would need to verify the absence of violations. AirBnb just needs to check the presence of a registration

Your example is different, because the isp in question would need to verify the absence of violations. AirBnb just needs to check the presence of a registration, much like a bar checks ids for <21.

DannyBee 10y ago
You can easily make them the same : The media companies put together lists of people they claim violate the law, isps must check for them and not charge subscriber fees. (any argument about who is on the list is a due process one, unrelated to this)
- SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
  That's not the same at all. Private companies creating a list of banned persons is different, substantially, from ordinances requiring a license. The very basis of negative versus positive approval, for instance.
  - DannyBee 10y ago
    Sure they are, because i believe you've missed the point by trying to think too simply. The ordinance only requires AirBNB not charge service fees are people who are unlicensed. Imagine, instead, LA requires licensing of people who download torrents (much like they are allowed to require that people register illegal weapons, etc, and then charge folks for it). Then they say "ISP's can do whatever they want, but they can't charge subscriber fees to people who download torrents who have not registered. Doing so is a misdemeanor". Like I said, you can literally change the words "hosts who have not registered to rent their home" to "people who have not registered to do X", where X is pretty much whatever you want. (For the curious, here's what you have to do: http://sf-planning.org/office-short-term-rental-registry-faqs http://sf-planning.org/office-short-term-rental-registry-faq...) The actual ordinance text: (e) Criminal Penalties. Any Owner or Business Entity who rents a Residential Unit for Tourist or Transient Use in violation of this Chapter 41 A, or any Hosting Platform that provides a Booking Service for a Residential Unit to be used for Tourist or Transient Use in violation of the Hosting Platform's obligations under this Chapter 41A, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Any person convicted of a misdemeanor hereunder shall be punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 or by imprisonment in the County Jail for a period of not more than six months, or by both. Each Residential Unit rented for Tourist or Transient Use shall constitute a separate offense.
    - manarth 10y ago
      Imagine, instead, LA requires licensing of people who download torrents You can literally change the words *"hosts who have not registered to rent their home"* to *"people who have not registered to do X"* Which is the point: SF has passed laws that require licensing. Those laws are more appropriate for some things than others. Requiring a license for renting out a property for tourist or transient use is very different to requiring a license for torrenting. Could LA pass a law requiring a license for torrenting? Could such a law withstand appeal?
- revelation 10y ago
  They.. already do that? https://copyright.att.net/home https://copyright.att.net/home
  - DannyBee 10y ago
    ah, but the difference nothing legally requires them to follow this or risk legal action from a government :) Here's it's literally been made criminal to not do it.
- geofft 10y ago
  I feel like, if that is prohibited by law, it really ought to be something other than Section 230 prohibiting that. Is there anything preventing, say, media companies putting together lists of people they claim violate the law, giving that to a state or local government, and having the state or local government require that camcorder sellers not sell them camcorders? (Section 230 does not apply because there is neither internet nor communication, so they can be banned outright.) What could a camcorder seller do to object to this law?
  - DannyBee 10y ago
    Nothing in your case. Remember, however, that preemption exists. 230 is a federal law ;) This is a state ordinance clearly frustrating the purpose of that federal law. Thus, normally, the answer is "it's preempted by that federal law"

Your example is different, because the isp in question would need to verify the absence of violations. AirBnb just needs to check the presence of a registration, much like a bar checks ids for <21.

DannyBee 10y ago

You can easily make them the same : The media companies put together lists of people they claim violate the law, isps must check for them and not charge subscriber fees. (any argument about who is on the list is a due process one, unrelated to this)

SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
That's not the same at all. Private companies creating a list of banned persons is different, substantially, from ordinances requiring a license. The very basis of negative versus positive approval, for instance.
- DannyBee 10y ago
  Sure they are, because i believe you've missed the point by trying to think too simply. The ordinance only requires AirBNB not charge service fees are people who are unlicensed. Imagine, instead, LA requires licensing of people who download torrents (much like they are allowed to require that people register illegal weapons, etc, and then charge folks for it). Then they say "ISP's can do whatever they want, but they can't charge subscriber fees to people who download torrents who have not registered. Doing so is a misdemeanor". Like I said, you can literally change the words "hosts who have not registered to rent their home" to "people who have not registered to do X", where X is pretty much whatever you want. (For the curious, here's what you have to do: http://sf-planning.org/office-short-term-rental-registry-faqs http://sf-planning.org/office-short-term-rental-registry-faq...) The actual ordinance text: (e) Criminal Penalties. Any Owner or Business Entity who rents a Residential Unit for Tourist or Transient Use in violation of this Chapter 41 A, or any Hosting Platform that provides a Booking Service for a Residential Unit to be used for Tourist or Transient Use in violation of the Hosting Platform's obligations under this Chapter 41A, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Any person convicted of a misdemeanor hereunder shall be punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 or by imprisonment in the County Jail for a period of not more than six months, or by both. Each Residential Unit rented for Tourist or Transient Use shall constitute a separate offense.
  - manarth 10y ago
    Imagine, instead, LA requires licensing of people who download torrents You can literally change the words *"hosts who have not registered to rent their home"* to *"people who have not registered to do X"* Which is the point: SF has passed laws that require licensing. Those laws are more appropriate for some things than others. Requiring a license for renting out a property for tourist or transient use is very different to requiring a license for torrenting. Could LA pass a law requiring a license for torrenting? Could such a law withstand appeal?
revelation 10y ago
They.. already do that? https://copyright.att.net/home https://copyright.att.net/home
- DannyBee 10y ago
  ah, but the difference nothing legally requires them to follow this or risk legal action from a government :) Here's it's literally been made criminal to not do it.
geofft 10y ago
I feel like, if that is prohibited by law, it really ought to be something other than Section 230 prohibiting that. Is there anything preventing, say, media companies putting together lists of people they claim violate the law, giving that to a state or local government, and having the state or local government require that camcorder sellers not sell them camcorders? (Section 230 does not apply because there is neither internet nor communication, so they can be banned outright.) What could a camcorder seller do to object to this law?
- DannyBee 10y ago
  Nothing in your case. Remember, however, that preemption exists. 230 is a federal law ;) This is a state ordinance clearly frustrating the purpose of that federal law. Thus, normally, the answer is "it's preempted by that federal law"