My Blog About Cyber Laws

The attempted passage of laws such as the Stop Online Piracy Act has acted like a shot of espresso for many webmasters and site owners. Many are realizing that the days of paying only passing attention to laws applicable to the internet are over.

The majority of site owners now have basic legal terms on their site. This is primarily due to the fact that Google stuck a spur under everyone's virtual derriere by making the presence of legal terms, privacy policies, contact pages and what have you part of the 200 plus factors it looks at when ranking a site. The problem now is not whether sites have these terms, but where they are getting them from.

As an attorney, I would like to believe that you are using original legal terms on your site. As someone who has been working on the web since the late 1990s, I know that is a laughable notion. The number of people who have simply copied legal terms from one site and republished them on their own must number in the millions. Each of these sites is sitting on a time bomb that is just ticking away.

The initial difficulty with this approach is that most people don't really understand what the legal terms mean. From privacy policies to terms of use, the legal language defines your relationship with visitors to your site. You are essentially laying down the rules of how they can use the site and what you will do and not do with their information.

Where site owners get into trouble is they don't comply with their own legal terms. One of the more infamous stories that floated around the web for a bit was the site owner that was sued for copyright infringement. His site had a DMCA notification page on it. The only problem was he had copied it from another site. The DMCA Agent and address for takedown notices were still listing the information from the site he had "borrowed" the documents from! He never received the takedown notice and ended up paying a good bit of money on the copyright infringement claim!

Another problem that arises when you "borrow" legal terms from another site is copyright. Let me ask you a simple question. Who do you think originally wrote the language you are borrowing? The answer is an attorney. Do you really think it is smart to infringe upon the copyright of an attorney? How do you think that attorney is going to react to having their work republished without their consent? The answer should be obvious.

Most webmasters and site owners have a hostile view towards legal terms for their website. This is a huge mistake. Things like privacy policies and terms of use are written to help you minimize the risk of running into problems with visitors. This is a good thing for you, so stop publishing language on your site that you probably don't even follow and get a set that will help insulate you from problems.

Richard A. Chapo is with SanDiegoBusinessLawFirm.com - providing website audit services to online businesses.

Article Source:http://EzineArticles.com/?expert

Internet "gripe" sites have become very popular over the last three or four years, and they have taken many different forms. Some of these sites have offered students an opportunity to share random thoughts. Others have turned into a bashing forum for people to light into other people. Others still allow consumers to gripe about different businesses. Though it turns out these sites are completely legal, there are some reasons to take pause if you are posting on them. The law provides certain protections for the owners of these sites, but those protections are not ironclad. This is especially true in the changing world where internet laws are under siege.

Laws designed to shield site owners

One of the nice things about today's internet law is that site owners are relatively insulated from litigation. They have a "shield", so to speak, since the law does not allow for prosecution on the basis of simply providing a forum. The way these sites get away with this is relatively simple. They just put out the bulletin board and allow people to post thoughts on it. This puts the responsibility on the individuals doing the posting, since the law does not impute liability onto the site owner in most circumstances. Though many have tried, it is very difficult to get to a site owner based upon these principles.

Coming after site posters

Just because the site is insulated does not mean that individual posters are free to post what they want. Even anonymous posters can be held liable for their words if those words are defamatory to other people. In many instances, subpoenas have been served on the site, requiring the site owners to give up IP addresses on users. This can turn ugly for people who have been posting false statements, as they can be sued for libel as a result of their words.

Site owners and encouraging misconduct

Gripe sites have run into some trouble on the basis of "encouraging" certain kinds of postings. Though they are not civilly liable for defamation on the face, these individual site owners can be implicated if they encourage certain postings. This is where the law gets a bit murky, so site owners have to be very careful in how they craft their sites. Though they are not required to take down postings and they are not generally responsible for all defamation that takes place there, a site owner can have some liability if he is not careful.

The changing nature of internet law

Another thing to note is that the internet law is changing. The US Supreme Court and other federal courts are still relatively new to the proceedings and they are still learning how to apply the law. There is always a chance that the law could shift with judicial interpretation changing in time. This is something that site owners and internet posters alike must be aware of if they plan to test the difficult waters of internet gripe and borderline defamation.

I am an Arizona Bankruptcy Lawyer and an Internet Law Attorney

Article Source:http://EzineArticles.com/?expert

The attempted passage of laws such as the Stop Online Piracy Act has acted like a shot of espresso for many webmasters and site owners. Many are realizing that the days of paying only passing attention to laws applicable to the internet are over.

The majority of site owners now have basic legal terms on their site. This is primarily due to the fact that Google stuck a spur under everyone's virtual derriere by making the presence of legal terms, privacy policies, contact pages and what have you part of the 200 plus factors it looks at when ranking a site. The problem now is not whether sites have these terms, but where they are getting them from.

As an attorney, I would like to believe that you are using original legal terms on your site. As someone who has been working on the web since the late 1990s, I know that is a laughable notion. The number of people who have simply copied legal terms from one site and republished them on their own must number in the millions. Each of these sites is sitting on a time bomb that is just ticking away.

The initial difficulty with this approach is that most people don't really understand what the legal terms mean. From privacy policies to terms of use, the legal language defines your relationship with visitors to your site. You are essentially laying down the rules of how they can use the site and what you will do and not do with their information.

Where site owners get into trouble is they don't comply with their own legal terms. One of the more infamous stories that floated around the web for a bit was the site owner that was sued for copyright infringement. His site had a DMCA notification page on it. The only problem was he had copied it from another site. The DMCA Agent and address for takedown notices were still listing the information from the site he had "borrowed" the documents from! He never received the takedown notice and ended up paying a good bit of money on the copyright infringement claim!

Another problem that arises when you "borrow" legal terms from another site is copyright. Let me ask you a simple question. Who do you think originally wrote the language you are borrowing? The answer is an attorney. Do you really think it is smart to infringe upon the copyright of an attorney? How do you think that attorney is going to react to having their work republished without their consent? The answer should be obvious.

Most webmasters and site owners have a hostile view towards legal terms for their website. This is a huge mistake. Things like privacy policies and terms of use are written to help you minimize the risk of running into problems with visitors. This is a good thing for you, so stop publishing language on your site that you probably don't even follow and get a set that will help insulate you from problems.

Richard A. Chapo is with SanDiegoBusinessLawFirm.com - providing website audit services to online businesses.

Article Source:http://EzineArticles.com/?expert

Internet "gripe" sites have become very popular over the last three or four years, and they have taken many different forms. Some of these sites have offered students an opportunity to share random thoughts. Others have turned into a bashing forum for people to light into other people. Others still allow consumers to gripe about different businesses. Though it turns out these sites are completely legal, there are some reasons to take pause if you are posting on them. The law provides certain protections for the owners of these sites, but those protections are not ironclad. This is especially true in the changing world where internet laws are under siege.

Laws designed to shield site owners

One of the nice things about today's internet law is that site owners are relatively insulated from litigation. They have a "shield", so to speak, since the law does not allow for prosecution on the basis of simply providing a forum. The way these sites get away with this is relatively simple. They just put out the bulletin board and allow people to post thoughts on it. This puts the responsibility on the individuals doing the posting, since the law does not impute liability onto the site owner in most circumstances. Though many have tried, it is very difficult to get to a site owner based upon these principles.

Coming after site posters

Just because the site is insulated does not mean that individual posters are free to post what they want. Even anonymous posters can be held liable for their words if those words are defamatory to other people. In many instances, subpoenas have been served on the site, requiring the site owners to give up IP addresses on users. This can turn ugly for people who have been posting false statements, as they can be sued for libel as a result of their words.

Site owners and encouraging misconduct

Gripe sites have run into some trouble on the basis of "encouraging" certain kinds of postings. Though they are not civilly liable for defamation on the face, these individual site owners can be implicated if they encourage certain postings. This is where the law gets a bit murky, so site owners have to be very careful in how they craft their sites. Though they are not required to take down postings and they are not generally responsible for all defamation that takes place there, a site owner can have some liability if he is not careful.

The changing nature of internet law

Another thing to note is that the internet law is changing. The US Supreme Court and other federal courts are still relatively new to the proceedings and they are still learning how to apply the law. There is always a chance that the law could shift with judicial interpretation changing in time. This is something that site owners and internet posters alike must be aware of if they plan to test the difficult waters of internet gripe and borderline defamation.

I am an Arizona Bankruptcy Lawyer and an Internet Law Attorney

Article Source:http://EzineArticles.com/?expert