Liability of ISPS for Content Hosted by Them

Our society has now evolved as an Informationavoid commission of offences/wrongs over the
Society. Now the paper based newspapers are beinginternet. Holding ISPs liable is not an end to achieve
replaced by the dynamic websites, which arebut a mean to achieve other ends. So in this situation
sometimes being managed by intelligent agents.we must have to consider other possible solutions to
Where at one hand where this evolution has broughtthe problem as well and if we fail to find any other
us the knowledge explosion and now access topossible solutions then it may be our final resort
information is easier than ever before, on the otherbecause law has to provide protection to the rights
hand new issues have also emerged and legislator isgranted by it. However, in author's opinion there exist
confronted with new challenges. One of these issuescertain solutions to this problem, which may provide
is the question regarding liability of intermediariesadequate level of security to all the stakeholders
(ISPs) for the infringements over the internet.without adversely affecting the freedom of
There are no boundaries and anything which isexpression and the ultimate theme of internet.
published on internet becomes worldly public the nextPossible Types of Liability of ISPs:
moment. This ease of worldwide publication hasIn view of the above discussion following can be the
invoked new threats to the society as well. It haspossible options before us. These options were
disturbed the whole system of copyrights, civilconsidered in during the passing of Digital Millennium
liberties, protection against ethnic and religiousCopyrights Act. This article is focused only few main
exploitation, law of defamation, child pornography andpoints of the discussion in this regard.i. Strict Liability:
cyber-terrorism. In such a situation it may not beAccording to Strict Liability criteria, ISPs may be held
easy to let ISPs go without any liability for theresponsible for all the material hosted with them
material hosted on them. However, at the same timeirrespective of their level of knowledge.
it may also not be an easy task for the ISPs (even ifOne argument in support of imposition of strict liability
they want to do so) to keep a check on all thecan be that the ISPs are remunerated for the
materials hosted with them. The situation becomesservices provided by them and therefore, like all the
even more trivial when it comes to territoriality ofother big publishers and distributors are under a
law. The situation is yet be addressed by theresponsibility to review the material hosted on them.
legislator in Pakistan. This article is an attempt toHowever, the argument against the imposition of
highlight the issues concerning the liability of ISPsstrict liability can be that the situation of ISPs is very
consequent to the material hosted by them anddifferent from the distribution companies as ISPs are
remedies adopted by the Europe and America.dealing with the electronic environment where
What is an ISP:information is changing every second and it is not
In general Internet Service Providers (ISP) performpossible to review this changing information.ii.
various functions and offer a variety of services likeVicarious Liability:
access to internet, hosting of information on internet,Vicarious liability can be defined as the liability imposed
network services etc.on a defendant in the circumstances when he had
EU Directive 2000/31/EC has defined servicethe right and ability to supervise the infringing activity
providers as any natural or legal person providingand had direct financial gain from the same.
information society services. The term "informationThe imposition of vicarious liability is hit by the
society services" is further elaborated in Article 1(2)argument that there does not exist any employer
of the Directive 98/34/EC as any service normallyservant relationship between the subscribers and
provided for remuneration, at a distance, byISPs and furthermore, that the ISPs are remunerated
electronic means and at the individual request of afor their services irrespective of the content of the
recipient of services.service i.e. ISPs are not directly benefited (besides
However, for the purposes of this article only thethose special cases where an ISP is itself owns a
aspect regarding hosting of information on theparticular website) from the activities performed by
internet will be discussed.the subscribers.iii. With Fault Liability:
Nature of Liability of ISPs:This is an instance where an ISP has the knowledge
It is important to understand that ISPs are usuallyabout the infringing material.
not a direct beneficiary of the crimes/civil wrongsThere are mainly two different standards of
committed by their subscribers. They are usuallyknowledge constructive knowledge and actual
remunerated for their services regardless of theknowledge. ISPs being the host of the infringing
content published over the internet.material are presumed to have constructive
There can be two instances of liabilities for theknowledge of the material so hosted. Therefore,
material hosted on internet:i. Criminal Liability:ISPs argue that the standard of knowledge to be
Criminal liability of ISPs may arise out of the crimesapplied must be "actual knowledge".iv. No Liability:
committed over the internet. These may include childThe fourth option in this regard can be no liability. In
pornography, cyber-terrorism, infringement ofsuch case, ISPs may not be held responsible for an
copyrights etc.ii. Civil Liability:infringing activity even if they have the actual and
Civil liability refers to instances where ISPs may beinformed knowledge of the same.
sued by private persons or organizations forEU Law:
infringements of their civil rights. Instances of civilArticle 14 of the said Directive regulates the liability of
liability may include an action for defamation,the service provider for the information stored on
copyright infringement etc.them as under:
Both criminal and civil liabilities have their own1. Where an information society service is provided
requisites, which sometimes also vary in a great dealthat consists of the storage of information provided
for specific wrongs.by a recipient of the service, Member States shall
In order to constitute criminal liability two elementsensure that the service provider is not liable for the
are very necessary to be there:i. "Mens Rea" : Mensinformation stored at the request of a recipient of
rea refers to a guilty mind. In order to constitute athe service, on condition that:
person liable for a criminal wrong it is important to(a) the provider does not have actual knowledge of
establish that the act was done with an intent to doillegal activity or information and, as regards claims for
it in a harmful way. However, the requirements todamages, is not aware of facts or circumstances
establish "mens rea" vary according to the definitionfrom which the illegal activity or information is
of wrong. It purely depends on the ingredients of aapparent; or
specific crime that what may constitute mens rea. It(b) the provider, upon obtaining such knowledge or
ranges from an act done recklessly to the clearawareness, acts expeditiously to remove or to
dishonest intentions.ii. Actus Rea: Along with a guiltydisable access to the information.
mind the presence of actual act is also necessary.2. Paragraph 1 shall not apply when the recipient of
This act can be an act of abetment or helping andthe service is acting under the `authority or the
aiding a crime or can be actual commission of thecontrol of the provider.
crime.3. This Article shall not affect the possibility for a
Unlike a criminal act, a tort does not require thecourt or administrative authority, in accordance with
presence of guilty mind and it may be a tort mayMember States' legal systems, of requiring the
sufficiently be proved if the commission of an actservice provider to terminate or prevent an
falling under the definition of a tort (or a civil wrong)infringement, nor does it affect the possibility for
has been proved.Member States of establishing procedures governing
Of course, there always exist the exception to boththe removal or disabling of access to information.
criminal and civil wrongs and one has the defensesInformation Society Services are defined in Directive
warranted by law. Like an act done in self-defence or98/34/EC as:
contributory negligence etc.2). "service": any Information Society service, that is
A detailed discussion of each wrong is necessary asto say, any service normally provided for
to decide the question of imposition of liability on ISPremuneration, at a distance, by electronic means and
in each respective case. However, this is not the aimat the individual request of a recipient of services.
of this article and the author shall endeavor toFor the purposes of this definition:
discuss the question of holding ISP liable from its- at a distance": means that the service is provided
jurisprudential point of view. During the discussionwithout the parties being simultaneously present,
reference will also be made to the EU and American- by electronic means": means that the service is sent
laws on the subject.initially and received at its destination by means of
Requisite for Imposing a Liability on an ISP:electronic equipment for the processing (including
Responsibility follows liability and liability arises out ofdigital compression) and storage of data, and entirely
responsibility. In order to impose a liability, it istransmitted, conveyed and received by wire, by
necessary to decide whether ISPs can be assignedradio, by optical means or by other electromagnetic
the responsibility of checking the material hosting withmeans,
them. Where means are not within reach of the- "at the individual request of a recipient of services":
subject, the responsibility automatically getsmeans that the service is provided through the
frustrated. Therefore, this responsibility is to betransmission of data on individual re
within the powers and limitations of ISPs.It is interesting to note here that even if the service
The question implies a consideration of economical,provider may have the knowledge of the illegal
technological as well as social aspects of the same.activity or defamatory material, it may not be held
Economical Aspects:responsible if the illegal activity has been removed or
Information over the internet is very dynamic andaccess to information has been disabled.
the owner of websites are at liberty to change theFurthermore, under Article 15 of the same directive,
contents every moment and in most of the cases itthe member States are also debarred from imposing
also happens so. Secondly the size of the informationany general liability on ISPs to monitor the content
hosted with the ISP is in terra bytes and it mayhosted with them.
scrutinize several months. Even if the ISPs higherAmerican Law-Digital Millenium Copyright Act:
enough human resource to keep a track of everIn America, the liability of intermediaries over the
changing information over the internet (although it isinternet is regulated by Digital Millenium Copyright Act
next to impossible), the cost of the same is going toof 1998
touch sky. The burden will automatically going to beSection 512(c) limits the liability of service providers
shifted to the consumer and thus ultimately resultingfor infringing material on websites (or other
in an obstruction to free flow of information.information repositories) hosted on their systems. It
Technological Aspects:applies to storage at the direction of a user. In order
ISPs are not yet equipped with requisite technologyto be eligible for the limitation, the following conditions
to avoid the violations over the internet. This requiresmust be met:o The provider must not have the
high-tech language and image processing and surelyrequisite level of knowledge of the infringing activity.o
the technology is so far not that advanced to copIf the provider has the right and ability to control the
with the problem by embedding technologicalinfringing activity, it must not receive a financial
measures in the servers of ISPs.benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity.o
Social Aspects:Upon receiving proper notification of claimed
By assigning a responsibility to ISPs to monitor theinfringement, the provider must expeditiously take
content hosted with them, we may empower ISPsdown or block access to the material.
with an unjustified power of censorship and ISPsIn addition, a service provider must have filed with
may ultimately get into a position from where theythe Copyright Office a designation of an agent to
can regulate the information over the internetreceive notifications of claimed infringement. The
according to their own wishes and whims. These ISPsOffice provides a suggested form for the purpose of
may become judicial institutions while deciding whichdesignating an agent ( and maintains a list of agents
information is to be published and which is not.on the Copyright Office website (
Secondly, the flow of information over the internetThe terms "actual knowledge", "information society
may become very slow and ultimately result interntservices" and "expeditiously" have their own judicial
as a static world and society thereby lose its interestmeanings and require separate and detailed
in the same causing the whole web to fall down.elaboration. However, the space does not allow
It is important to note here that the internet isauthor to go into the details of these terms. But it is
totally different from paper world where publishersnote worthy that the idea behind both the legislations
can easily scrutinize the contents of publication.is same and that is to hold ISPs liable only if they
Internet is meant to be a dynamic world wherehave the "actual knowledge" of the infringing material
information is updated every next moment. Withoutand fail to disable access to same expeditiously.
this ability internet will no more be of interest.The actual knowledge criterion as opposed to
In view of the above discussion it is very clear thatconstructive knowledge does not generate much
we cannot assign this responsibility to ISPs in thisambiguity, as it is a well-established principle within the
regard and we have to find different solutions whilemember states that actual knowledge means that
compromising with the situation.the defendant actually knew about the infringing
What is the Basic Idea:material. It is also pertinent to mention here that the
One point to start the process of thinking can beactual knowledge criteria may also shift the burden of
with the question, what we really want. Is this theprove on the plaintiff, where plaintiff may be required
imposition of liability on ISP what we really want. Isto prove the actual knowledge of the ISP about the
this a goal or a mean to achieve some other moreinfringing activity or information.
specific goal?While concluding the above discussion it can be said
This question maybe differently answered bythat the limited liability imposed on ISPs is
different stakeholders. From the perspective ofwell-justified and serves the purpose without
copyright owners, the answer is simply a "YES'.obstructing the free flow of information and
Because they want to be compensated for thedamaging the theme of internet. However, one must
damage caused to them by the unauthorizednot forget that nothing is permanent in this dynamic
publication of copyrighted material over the internetworld except change, and therefore, as the
where copying is just a matter to on click. Usually thetechnology emerges new solution to the said problem
person actually publishing the copyrighted materialmay be proposed. One aspect of which can be
over the internet is an ordinary person who is not soembedding of technology into the ISPs servers in
wealthy to compensate the loss done to the ownerorder to detect the copyrights infringements by the
of copyrighted material and therefore, the copyrightmaterial being hosted on them and therefore,
owner will be more interested in suing the respectiverestricting the publication of the same. The digital
ISP who is usually a rich company and much can becertificates may also be considered as a useful mean
recovered from it.to avoid infringements in this regard.
However, the idea is not to hold ISPs liable but to