Understanding Liability Issues For Streaming Media and VoIP

Streaming video, like many other technologies, has allowed us to do more with the Internet than ever before. We can broadcast not just our words, but our emotions and tone via live and recorded images to millions of people around the world, at any time of the day, for virtually no cost. But along with this new freedom of communication comes the possibility of violating the rights of individuals that are discussed, pictured, or otherwise identified on the Internet. The fact that the Internet is so accessible increases the potential for abusive communication and resulting damage to a person’s reputation or rights. Individuals using streaming video and other Internet technologies to broadcast comments, ideas, beliefs, and thoughts need to take their role as a publisher seriously and understand the legal landscape in which they act.

In recent months, individuals have filed lawsuits claiming that they were defamed, had their right to privacy invaded, or were otherwise harmed by statements or other postings on the Internet. In these lawsuits the plaintiffs, in addition to suing the source of the information, named other potentially responsible parties with the "deep pockets" to pay any judgment. In the Internet context these "deep pockets" included the Web hosts, ISPs, and other forum-operating entities as additional defendants.

This created a potentially large problem for entities doing business on, or related to, the Internet. The ease of communicating, geographic scope, and permanency of items on the Internet increased the possibility for these lawsuits and made the potential damages rise exponentially because of the wide public distribution of the information.

A Special Law For The Internet
In 1996, Congress passed the Communications Decency Act (CDA), which included an "immunity" section for certain Internet-related entities in particular circumstances. This immunity was granted in an effort to (a) encourage the free flow of information on the Internet, and (b) encourage Web site hosts and other administrators to regulate the content of their Web sites, chat rooms, etc. in order to maintain certain standards of what is being posted and is accessible without the risk of liability for doing so. A majority of courts have interpreted the immunity broadly, covering "providers or users of an interactive computer service" (a group beyond simply ISPs) if they did not significantly contribute to the creation or development of the allegedly harmful material that is received electronically and posted on their Web site.

This immunity, however, can raise conflicting results where the "real world" and the "Internet world" meet. Assume that a local TV news station receives an email containing a video with subtitles asserting that the person pictured in the video is a terrorist (when in fact they are not). Being "hot news," the station immediately puts the video on the air, and makes it accessible on its Web site. The station could be held liable for televising the video, which reached the portion of the local market tuning in at the time of the broadcast. However, it could make a strong argument that it is immune from a suit for the Web site publication, which could reach the entire world in an instant and could remain on the Web indefinitely—because the station did not contribute to the creation or development of the material.