Re:You've Been Referred Here Because You're Wrong About Sect...
by joshuamorton on Saturday January 09, 2021 @05:15PM
(#25705482)
> That is the exact crux. I created the content, but EVERY one of these sites is clear they own it. Once I wrote it and hit send, I gave it to them and assumed ownership, they are clear about this. So they ARE publishing THEIR content.
This isn't the distinction the law makes though. The distinction is about the provider, not the owner. If I write a book, and you post an excerpt from that book on my website, I'm not liable under 230, even though I'm the original author of the content! The distinction the law makes is between a first party provider and a third party provider.
That is, imagine I got a license to an image in my book, but not for distribution on the internet. You then post the page from the book as a comment on my website. I didn't violate my license, even though the book posted on my site was mine.
This isn't the distinction the law makes though. The distinction is about the provider, not the owner. If I write a book, and you post an excerpt from that book on my website, I'm not liable under 230, even though I'm the original author of the content! The distinction the law makes is between a first party provider and a third party provider.
That is, imagine I got a license to an image in my book, but not for distribution on the internet. You then post the page from the book as a comment on my website. I didn't violate my license, even though the book posted on my site was mine.