Slashdot Mirror
Web Hosts Hit With $32 Million Judgment For Content
mikesd81 tips news that a California jury has found two web hosting companies liable for "contributing to trademark and copyright infringement" after hosting web sites that sold counterfeit Louis Vuitton items. Both companies are owned by the same man, Steven Chen, and are being ordered to pay $32 million in fines. A similar judgment for $61 million went against eBay last year for facilitating the sale of counterfeit Louis Vuitton merchandise.
"The US District Court for the Northern District of California is expected to issue a permanent injunction banning the internet service providers from hosting Web sites that selling fake Louis Vuitton goods in the future, the company said. Attorneys for the luxury goods maker said in a statement that the case is the first successful application on the internet of the theory of contributory liability for trademark infringement. Under this theory, companies that know, or should know, that they are enabling illegal activities have an obligation to remedy the situation. Entities that fail to do so, as Louis Vuitton alleged in this case, can be held legally responsible for contributing to the illegal activities."
This is being widely discussed in the hosting industry. The full jury ruling is online, and there's additional analysis and discussion at the Web Host Industry Review, TechDirt and Data Center Knowledge.
They would have to prove you knew (which for convincing fakes would be incredibly hard to do).
However if, Cisco informed you that you were selling fakes and you continued selling what you knew to be fakes, are you seriously suggesting you shouldn't then be liable for selling counterfeit goods?
Ignorance is still a valid defence, however if you RTFA you will see the web hosts were informed they were hosting websites selling illegal goods and did nothing to remedy this. The sellers made money selling dodgy goods, the web hosts made money directly from the illegal activity and enabled it to continue.
You need to dig a bit (it's mentioned in the seventh paragraph of the linked article, with a more detailed discussion on the second page), but basically the ISP in question failed to take action to shut down the hosted sites despite repeated takedown notices from Louis Vuitton. The only real precedent that this sets if you ask me is a very positive one in that if your "abuse@" email is a blackhole then you had better have extremely good liability cover and/or be very hard to reach to avoid being served with lawsuits.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
Did Defendants prove by a preponderance of evidence that they are service provides [sic] who acted in a manner that entitles Defendants to the "safe harbor" provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act?
the jury answered "no" for all three parties, including the service provider. They considered the DMCA and rejected that defense.
It looks to me like this is a lot of people getting upset over nothing; to the best I can tell (without access to other court documents), the host blatantly ignored DMCA-like steps to mitigate the situation, acted willfully to support the copyright infringers, and got financial compensation for doing so. Justice was served.