Beware: a very bad precedent set
jbates at brightok.net
Mon Aug 31 16:51:14 CDT 2009
nanog at wbsconnect.com wrote:
> Any and all nefarious activity alleged in this lawsuit was conducted by a customer, of a customer, of a customer yet the hosting provider was found liable, not the actual criminal manufacturing and selling the fakes.
> We had all better watch our backs since it seems that claims of not being able to inspected tens of millions of packets per second is no longer a viable excuse.
Hmmm. I thought DMCA made it quite clear that a service provider cannot
"The Akanoc Defendants’ specific business model of providing unmanaged
server capacity to web hosting resellers does not exempt them from
taking active steps to effectively prevent infringing activity upon
notification from an intellectual property rights owner. "
I consider that the more important statement in the article. The "upon
notification" being the largest issue. Don't know if DMCA covers
anything outside the scope of copyright, but I think it's been generally
accepted that ignoring reports of infringement can bring about liability.
More information about the NANOG