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

Tue Sep 8 00:27:13 UTC 2009

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

Ah. I apologize. It happens.

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

-- 
Gadi Evron,
ge at linuxbox.org.

Blog: http://gevron.livejournal.com/