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."
1. Not dude. Not even close.
2. You suck at noticing facetious and tongue-in-cheek remarks.
3. If this is any attempt at logic at all, it's the Absurd Case.
If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
"Semi-rational" is a stretch. Basically, this is affirming what people said would happen: if a takedown notice is received, the hosting company must assume that it is valid or face liability. If I want to take your website offline, I just claim that it is violating my copyright, and the hosting company must take it down before finding out whether or not there was an actual violation. How is that anything approaching rational?
Palm trees and 8