ruling: liability for providers who don't act on clients' illegal activities?

Mon Sep 7 17:22:07 UTC 2009

FYI, This was discussed in the already-OT thread "Beware : a very bad
precedent set" a week ago.

On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Gadi Evron <ge at linuxbox.org> wrote:

> Gadi Evron wrote:
>
>> Jury Exacts $32M Penalty From ISPs For Supporting Criminal Websites
>>
>> http://darkreading.com/securityservices/security/cybercrime/showArticle.jhtml
>>
>
> Corrected URL:
>
> http://darkreading.com/securityservices/security/cybercrime/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=5P4BO3EZ4TBL3QE1GHPSKH4ATMY32JVN?articleID=219501314
>
>
>
>
>  'Landmark case' indicates that ISPs may be held liable if they know about
>> criminal activity on their customers' Websites and fail to act
>>
>> A federal jury in California this week levied a total of $32 million in
>> damages from two Internet service providers that knowingly supported
>> Websites that were running illegal operations.
>>
>> In a lawsuit brought by fashion company Louis Vuitton, a jury ruled that
>> two ISPs -- Akanoc Solutions and Managed Solutions Group -- knew about
>> counterfeit Vuitton goods that were being sold on their customers' sites,
>> but didn't act quickly to pull the plug on those sites. The decision was
>> first reported on Tuesday.
>>
>> The ruling has been called a landmark decision by some legal experts, who
>> note that ISPs historically have been protected by the Digital Millennium
>> Copyright Act, which limits service providers' liability for criminal
>> actions that take place on their networks.
>>
>>
>>
>
>