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

[jamie <j () arpa com>]

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 () 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.