Interdesign Bath Mats Without Suction Cups

Big bang Web 2.0: the Supreme Court puts the record straight !

January 14, 2010, an era House Civil Court of Cassation ruled on the business of Tiscali Media. Described as a publisher, this company does not qualify for exemption from liability for hosting reserved. The entire economy of Web 2.0 may be struck by the power of the shock wave!

To anticipate, it should reconsider the meaning of this Decision (1) before measuring the huge economic impact (2) then to say why he should approve (3).

1) The meaning of the decision of the 1 st Civil Division: the host should perform only simple technical functions, excluding the management of paid advertising space. In consequence: the manager of the advertising displayed on a page is fully responsible for the content of any page.

This decision confirms the decision of the Court of Appeal in Paris on June 7, 2006, which described the publisher Tiscali Media, a subsidiary of Telecom Italia. As a publisher, This company is fully responsible for the content available on its site, even if such content is provided and stored by the Internet themselves.

In practice, it is characteristic of Web 2.0, this is the most time. Everyone contributes. But it may be defamatory, abusive, counterfeiting, provocation or justification of crimes and misdemeanors, violations of privacy, ... whose publisher is responsible for.

Considering this situation as likely to impede the development of e-commerce Parliament has provided an original status: the host (Act 1 st August 2000, then LCEN - June 21, 2004, transposing the European Directive of June 8, 2000 called "electronic commerce").

The essential characteristic of the host is the mitigation of its liability in case of illegal content.

On January 14, 2010, the Supreme Court tells us that the media company Tiscali is not eligible for classification as host.

For this, she notes that the company "offered to the user to create their personal pages from his site and offered to advertisers to set up directly on these pages, the advertising fee which it manages ;.

The High court draws the consequence that these services "exceeded the simple technical functions" provided by law for availing of quality hosting.

The rule is clear: the host shall not exercise that simple technical functions.

The advertising network business is not simply a technical function.

Therefore: the manager of the advertising displayed on a page is fully responsible for the content of any page.

2) From huge economic impact: an economic model to reconstruct

Paying the manager of the advertising displayed on a page fully responsible for the content of any page, the Supreme Court opened the floodgates for lawsuits brought against the tenor of the Internet such as Google, Facebook, YouTube ...

Rather than hypothetical prosecution of offenders, litigants may prefer to turn to these companies for compensation.

Similarly, countless forums and blogs balancing their accounts by advertising revenue will be beset by lawsuits that they can not lose.

Ultimately, it's a whole segment of the digital economy which is threatened with death and more specifically that of Web 2.0, characterized by the active role of users.

only seems viable rapid change to new economic models of funding, to see new behaviors.

Like any crisis, it should make a cohort of painful adjustments but also lucky winners.

3) A decision that should be approved because it is right and serves the public interest

The temptation to rebel against the decision of the Court of Cassation is strong.

This collides liberal ideology, so characteristic of the Internet.

Web 2.0 has this fascinating as it allows everyone to do as it pleases, speak, see to appropriate intangible property of others.

This freedom, reinforced by anonymity, propels the success and popularity of Web 2.0. In other words, its audience, its corollary financed through advertising.

Critics are sure to castigate a rule that would cut funding by advertising, which opposes the dogma of the development of e-commerce, inscribed in marble of the European Directive of 2000.

In 2010, however, regulation has more to prove that it has become essential.

Conforms to the general interest principle is to empower those who benefit from illegal acts of others.

The Supreme Court merely applied that principle to the galaxy of Web 2.0.

Like all exceptions, that granted the benefit of technical service providers must be interpreted strictly.

We must give thanks to the 1 st Civil Chamber of reminding us of the foundations of law.