4 ms·

(UK ruling) Content is 'made available' in jurisdiction where server is located

20 points by epo 16y ago

epo 16y ago
N.B. this has not yet gone to a full trial, this is a preliminary judgement.
- poiuytgfrgyhju 16y ago
  And it's going to last about as long as it takes the court to add up the income from libel tourists and the losses in people moving their data centres out of the UK
bdfh42 16y ago
If it holds up, then that should kill off the constant suing of web site owners for libel in the UK even when a given site is hosted outside of the UK. The UK's current libel laws are due a makeover but in the mean time they are being used to suppress legitimate comment and free speech.
- pmiller2 16y ago
  I agree this is good news, but even if this preliminary ruling were to hold up, it doesn't solve all the problems relating to libel and the internet in the UK. For example, because of the way email and Usenet posts propagate, if someone in the UK becomes aware of a message that offends his or her sensibilities, and a UK-based server is involved in the routing, as I understand it, the author could still be sued. This also does nothing about something like the case of Funding Evil by Rachel Ehrenfeld ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_Evil#Libel_controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_Evil#Libel_controversy ), in which 23 copies of the book ordered through "web sites registered in the UK" were deemed sufficient for the law to apply, even though the book was never published in the UK.
- cstross 16y ago
  The UK is not a single jurisdiction. Scotland has a separate legal system from England and Wales, based on different principles; while most legislation has run in parallel since the Act of Union, English libel law doesn't apply in Scotland -- instead we have a defamation law: "Under English law ... In the case of libel (the recorded statement), the victim can win damages even if he has not suffered financial loss as a result of the statement ... In a Scottish action, it is necessary to show that some harm has been caused" (Source: http://www.out-law.com/page-5624 http://www.out-law.com/page-5624 -- my emphasis). This is good news for me personally because my blog sits on a colo box in Scotland. (And when was the last time you heard of a libel tourist suing someone in a Scottish court? Riiight ...)
  - epo 16y ago
    The principal difference in this regard is that Scotland makes no distinction between the two forms of defamation that the English call libel ('written') and slander ('spoken'). The money is in libel.
regularfry 16y ago
That's remarkably sane.

20 points by epo 16y ago

epo 16y ago

N.B. this has not yet gone to a full trial, this is a preliminary judgement.

poiuytgfrgyhju 16y ago
And it's going to last about as long as it takes the court to add up the income from libel tourists and the losses in people moving their data centres out of the UK

bdfh42 16y ago

If it holds up, then that should kill off the constant suing of web site owners for libel in the UK even when a given site is hosted outside of the UK. The UK's current libel laws are due a makeover but in the mean time they are being used to suppress legitimate comment and free speech.

pmiller2 16y ago
I agree this is good news, but even if this preliminary ruling were to hold up, it doesn't solve all the problems relating to libel and the internet in the UK. For example, because of the way email and Usenet posts propagate, if someone in the UK becomes aware of a message that offends his or her sensibilities, and a UK-based server is involved in the routing, as I understand it, the author could still be sued. This also does nothing about something like the case of Funding Evil by Rachel Ehrenfeld ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_Evil#Libel_controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_Evil#Libel_controversy ), in which 23 copies of the book ordered through "web sites registered in the UK" were deemed sufficient for the law to apply, even though the book was never published in the UK.
cstross 16y ago
The UK is not a single jurisdiction. Scotland has a separate legal system from England and Wales, based on different principles; while most legislation has run in parallel since the Act of Union, English libel law doesn't apply in Scotland -- instead we have a defamation law: "Under English law ... In the case of libel (the recorded statement), the victim can win damages even if he has not suffered financial loss as a result of the statement ... In a Scottish action, it is necessary to show that some harm has been caused" (Source: http://www.out-law.com/page-5624 http://www.out-law.com/page-5624 -- my emphasis). This is good news for me personally because my blog sits on a colo box in Scotland. (And when was the last time you heard of a libel tourist suing someone in a Scottish court? Riiight ...)
- epo 16y ago
  The principal difference in this regard is that Scotland makes no distinction between the two forms of defamation that the English call libel ('written') and slander ('spoken'). The money is in libel.

regularfry 16y ago

That's remarkably sane.