OT Re: Beware: a very bad precedent set
j at arpa.com
Mon Aug 31 22:10:50 UTC 2009
Wrong, wrong, wrong, Dr. Wrongy W. Wrongenstein.
If you're served with notice that you have a downstream customer /conducting
business that's illegal or tortious/ , you can't ignore it..
IANAL(yet), but ISPs don't really enjoy the same rights as "public carriers"
s/a telcos. And in this case, ISP didnt act to protect itself under
safe-harbor. They just liked the cash.
They're not responsible for inspecting "tens of millions of packets per
second". Where'd that come from?
They _are_ responsible for ignoring FedEx'd documents containing C&Ds /
notices of infringement. Some 15 violations, if you read the decision.
10: "Did [Louis Vuitton] prove that [ISP] knew ... that one or more of
(their) customers were using (their services) to directly infringe the
copyrights of [Vuitton] and that (ISP could still provide services but not
the infringing website(s))?" -YES-
12: "Did [ISP] (act in a manner that would protect them under DMCA Safe
13: "Did [ISP] (do this willfully)?" -YES-
Your business break the law in the name of the Dollar, your business will
That's the precedent here.
And, btw, "How do I configure my router for legal discussions on nanog-L?"
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 4:35 PM, <nanog at wbsconnect.com> wrote:
> NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. (“Louis Vuitton”)
> part of LVMH, the world’s leading luxury group, today announced that it has
> won the lawsuit it filed in 2007 against the California based Internet
> hosting business of Akanoc Solutions, Inc., Managed Solutions Group, Inc.,
> and Steven Chen (the “Akanoc Defendants”) in the United States District
> Court, Northern District of California (San Jose). On August 28th, the jury
> found the Akanoc Defendants liable for contributory trademark and copyright
> infringement, and awarded statutory damages in the amount of $32,400,000.00.
> The court is expected shortly to issue a permanent injunction banning the
> Akanoc Defendants from hosting websites that sell counterfeit or infringing
> Louis Vuitton goods.
> 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.
More information about the NANOG