Net neutrality is something that has been discussed for many years because of the ways in which it could effect our use of the Internet. Net neutrality can best be described as Internet service providers not being able to restrict a consumers’ access to any networks that share the Internet. Countries such as the Netherlands have made net neutrality a law. Mobile phone companies in the Netherlands wanted to be able to charge people extra for the use of calling done via the net. The government feels that all Internet traffic should be treated the same regardless of type of use. It does make sense that phone companies would want to limit the number of people calling online for free because of the potential of slowing down the network but at what cost to personal freedom and use of service already being paid for? At times it seems that there is an extra cost for pretty much everything we do in life. Many feel that the use of the phone over the Internet falls under intellectual property and that companies do have the right to limit or stop access to free use. The US is likely to follow the example of the Netherlands and pass similar net neutrality laws in the future that will restrict companies and Internet providers from limiting our access to the Internet. Mobile phone providers in the Netherlands have threatened to charge more for mobile Internet use, which could completely negate this new law.
In the discussion by Suffolk University Professor Daniel Lyons, I was very intrigued by some of the examples of how Internet service providers seek to stop users from essentially slowing down their service. Comcast is one such provider that was looking to stop bit torrent users from transferring large files. Bit torrent users are not your typical Internet user. They engage in peer-to-peer file sharing that results in the transferring of large files between users, which does slow down the use of Internet for a typical user. Comcast instead of stopping these users from transferring files instead was pretending to be a bit torrent user and cancelling transfers or simply saying they didn’t need the transfer. Comcast at first denied the allegations but when presented with proof admitted guilt. This kind of ‘Big Brother’ mentality exhibited by Internet service providers will soon be a thing of the past when net neutrality laws take effect.
http://itunes.apple.com/us/itunes-u/intellectual-property-law/id388454392
http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/subjects/n/net_neutrality/index.html
http://agonist.org/20110625/netherlands_makes_net_neutrality_a_law
The reason for choosing this podcast is because of their discussion about legal liability, which is a concern for any business owner. Legal liability in short is when a person is legally and financially obligated for something. Papadopoulos vs. Target is a case that involves tort law, property law and trespassers. The case involved a man whom fell on a piece of ice in a Target parking lot and sued Target as well as their landscaping company. Attorney David W. White defended this case and stated in the discussion that this case was “simple”. The defendant was able to win the case by referencing 130 years of Massachusetts’s law. The natural accumulation rule played a large part in winning the case for Target, which prohibits someone from suing another on the basis of untouched snow or ice on his or her property. It wasn’t until further appeal and review of the case by courts that the defendants realized something was wrong.
The Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) upon further review of the case found that the standard of reasonable care that applies in other situations should be applied to a business when inclement weather happens. The courts then ruled in favor of the plaintiff for damages suffered from the fall. The defendants attempted to reference cases of the past 130 years but the SJC’s argument was that technology has changed since then and it is reasonable to expect a business to plow their parking lot. This case at first doesn’t seem unique but shows that something as simple as ice could prove to be a huge legal liability. Living in a state like Delaware that can at times get large amounts of snow and ice, it would be prudent of me to shovel my walkways in the future.
http://www.goldmanpease.com/natural-accumulation-rule-abolished.html
http://www.mayitpleasethecourt.com/journal.asp
http://www.mayitpleasethecourt.com/media/journal_audio/audio_2115.mp3
The third and final podcast that I chose was about the tragedy at Virginia Tech that happened April 16, 2007 when a student gunman opened fire resulting in the death of 32 students. The podcast panel discusses whether Virginia Tech officials could have done more to prevent this tragedy from occurring. Is the school legally liable when it comes to protecting students from unseen harm? Another real issue with this case is the privacy laws that prevented Virginia Tech from accessing any of his mental health records.
In 2009 the families of the victims were offered a settlement of $11 million to be divided up amongst the families to pay for medical bills and hardship. Many of the families accepted the offer except two families the Pryde and Peterson families. The Attorneys for the two families were seeking damages in the amount of $10 million. The issue of top-ranking Virginia Tech officials being held liable falls under sovereign immunity which states that government officials can’t be held liable. For a while it was undecided whether these state employees fall under the same statute. Virginia Tech counselors were about to rely on Lohr vs. Larsen as defendants, in which the courts ruled that a public health physician was also entitled to sovereign immunity under the law. The argument held no value when it was found that while in the case of Lohr citizens were provided service because they couldn’t afford it, while Virginia Tech students pay for the service through tuition. Therefore, if the physician is found to be negligent then they could be held responsible. Ultimately, the courts found the plaintiffs complaints to prove simple negligence on the part of the defendant, there was insufficient evidence to prove gross negligence.
The fact that Virginia Tech had no prior knowledge of the shooters mental illness could not put them at fault for accepting him as a student to the school. When he was found to have been stalking 2 students at the university that is when he should have been removed from the school. At that point it seems that the school should be held responsible, though the law states differently. The laws that are in place, as of now, protecting the privacy of a mental health patient’s records should only apply to certain situations not applications to universities. If a student has exhibited mental instability that could lead to harming other students, then the university may have the right to reject their application on that basis. There is also the problem of students not being notified of the shooting until a couple hours later. Having an emergency alert system in place that notifies students by text and email of an on campus emergency could have potentially saved lives. My alma mater, the University of South Florida, has such a system in place that has come in handy numerous times when school emergencies occurred.
http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/lawyer-2-lawyer/2007/04/legal-liability-virginia-tech/
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/16/us/16cnd-shooting.html?pagewanted=2
http://lawyers-law.com/virginia-tech-massacre-victims-to-be-compensated/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24050712/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/settlement-reached-virginia-tech-shootings/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/16/AR2009041603576.html
http://www.roanoke.com/pdfs/vt011210.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment