MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2730140993

Don't Shoot the Messenger! A Discussion of ISP Liability

2002· article· en· W2730140993 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Andrew Bernstein, Rima Ramchandani

Bibliographic record

VenueeYLS (Yale Law School) · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBusiness Law and Ethics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLiabilityBusinessShootLawBotanyPolitical scienceBiologyAccounting
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In today’s world of rampant networked communica- tion, the Internet Service Provider (‘‘ISP’’) finds itself in a uniquely vulnerable position. As the conduit through which content is disseminated to a numerically and geo- graphically vast audience, the obvious legal risk to ISPs is that those who provide content will do so in a way that attracts legal liability. Like many communications prov- iders (such as publishers or broadcasters), the ISP may have to assume some responsibility for simply providing the means of transmitting content. In some cases, the ISP is more actively involved in the transmission or is know- ingly complicit, and the argument for imposing liability may be even stronger. The digital environment itself also raises novel concerns. The ISP makes a very attractive defendant because it is more readily identifiable in the realm of cyberspace where user anonymity is often the norm, because of the jurisdictional problems that arise from the global nature of the Internet, and because the ISP may have deep pockets. Sometimes the ISP is caught in the middle of a dispute between a plaintiff and a pseudonymous defendant, where the ISP is the only legal entity with any information as to the defendant’s true identity. The dilemma of the ISP and the legal implica- tions of the role it plays in the networked environment is a highly contentious and currently unresolved area in Canadian law. Given the pervasiveness of online com- munication, however, it is expected that both the Cana- dian courts and the legislature will soon be forced to address this issue.\nThis paper will attempt to describe some potentially troublesome areas for ISPs, and give some suggestions as to how liability can be minimized or avoided. The first part is a discussion of defamation issues, the second part is a discussion of copyright and other intellectual prop- erty rights, and the third part addresses the question of liability to subscribers over anonymity issues. We con- clude with some contracting tips for ISPs which bolster ISPs’ protection beyond the legal regime that is currently in place.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.040
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.084
Threshold uncertainty score0.166

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.040
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0270.030
Scholarly communication0.0200.021
Open science0.0070.007
Research integrity0.0620.031
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.209 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeYLS (Yale Law School)Same topicBusiness Law and EthicsFrench-language works237,207