Naked Law

Do you sell to consumers via your website?

If so, have a look at the Office of Fair Trading's new guidance for IT companies.  It covers any distance selling of IT goods and services to consumers, which will include not only online sales but also telephone, fax and postal orders.  The guidance covers the relevant regulatory requirements and also provides best practice advice on how to conduct transactions and on what terms and conditions are appropriate or might be potentially unfair.

Wiked-pedia?

Wikipedia, the online encyclopaedia, has been forced to change its submission rules following bad publicity by US journalist John Siegenthaler.  Mr Siegenthaler, a former assistant to Robert Kennedy, found his biography had been amended to implicate him in the assassinations of both his former boss and JFK.  He retaliated: “Wikipedia is a flawed and irresponsible research tool”.

Now contributors must register before they can supply new content – although not to edit existing content. 

The idea of the general public being allowed to edit, add or delete at whim online content, particularly where they are largely unmoderated, makes the average lawyer look up rather sharply and compose advice about the “significant risks” involved.  It is something of a legal minefield, with the author, website owner and ISP all potentially in the frame for anything from defamation to copyright infringement to passing off.  And the types and extent of potential liability vary significantly between jurisdictions.   These are issues already familiar to those involved in the running of message boards. 

The difference with Wikipedia is its sheer scale.  While it does enlist the help of several hundred volunteers to monitor and edit submissions, when there are around 850,000 entries in English it is clearly difficult if not impossible to vet each one.  This would also go somewhat against the ethos of Wikipedia which is to create a comprehensive encyclopaedia to which anyone can contribute, with entries correcting and updating those gone before.

Unsurprisingly for us, then, this is not the first time Wikipedia vandalism has caused a stir.  Last month the Norwegian prime minister, Jens Stoltenberg, found his biography had been updated to include (false) details of a prison sentence and paedophilia. 

And earlier this year a similar project by the Los Angeles Times, that sought to give online readers the opportunity to edit its editorials, was shut down after being “bombarded by inappropriate material”. 

To date it does not appear that aggrieved subjects have gone down the legal route.  Mr Siegenthaler opted for a high profile article.  Likewise in Norway it was the publicity that alerted Wikipedia editors to the change (but not early enough to prevent its widespread distribution).  Nevertheless, those considering a similar project from a small scale message board upwards as well as those contributing to them, would do well to consider their content as more than just a passing comment. 

Government Gowers ahead with IP review

A while back, we speculated about what the Government's manifesto pledge to "modernise copyright and other forms of protection of intellectual property rights so that they are appropriate for the digital age" might mean.  It looks as though we might have a better idea next year because the Chancellor has announced that Andrew Gowers (former editor of the FT) will conduct a review, to report back in Autumn 2006.  The review will encompass some of the following areas:

• "the way in which Government administers the awarding of IP and their support to consumers and business;
• how well businesses are able to negotiate the complexity and expense of the copyright and patent system, including copyright and patent licensing arrangements, litigation and enforcement; and
• whether the current technical and legal IP infringement framework reflects the digital environment, and whether provisions for ‘fair use’ by citizens are reasonable."

The reference to "fair use" is interesting in the context of differences between the US and UK positions, as recently highlighted by the Google Print saga.  A few (mostly cynical) reactions are already appearing on IPKat, and Axel Horns has found a juicy quotation from Mr Gowers' past.

No doubt the review will spark heated rections from around the globe and from both sides of the fence, a little like the debate over software patents: rights holders will be keen to see greater protection against the claimed threat to their revenue streams posed by the "digital environment", and those in favour of a "new copyright settlement" will argue for an overhaul of what they see as an outdated system that allows big business to (in the words of Larry Lessig) "lock down culture and control creativity".

Government websites: accessibility denied

The Cabinet Office e-government unit has published a report on the accessibility of government web sites across Europe. The results are disappointing. Of over 300 web sites surveyed, only 3% met the minimum requirements of the W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. Ensuring that a service provided online can, where reasonably possible, be accessed by a disabled person, is a legal requirement under the Disability Discrimination Act. Whilst compliance with the W3C guidelines is not, of itself, mandatory, they are a useful indication of the steps which web developers can take to ensure maximum accessibility for their sites. The e-government unit have also published their own checklist which provides a useful additional reference.

The e-government unit's report is likely to be worthwhile reading for those providing services through a web site - both in the public and private sector. Sites providing facilities such as online booking will need to take steps to ensure that they comply fully with the legislation.