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!
Hosts are under no obligation to actively investigate their content. In this case the hosts were informed about illegal content and took no action against it. This wasn't a case of them not spotting 1 website out of 1000 doing illegal activity, it was a case of them knowing about the activity but not caring.
They further said that Chen and his companies had been informed of the activity by Louis Vuitton but still refused to implement a policy for removing the offending sites, which was their responsibility.
So, I'm an ISP, and I host someone who runs a second-hand store. They sell legitimate "Louis Vuitton" crap, but at prices well below retail.
Louis Vuitton "informs" me that the material is counterfeit. I'm supposed to verify this how?
Since when did ISPs become the gatekeeper of what is and isn't legal?
Frequently, sites that are doing nothing wrong whatsoever are targeted by threatening their provider or at least making bogus IP claims to the provider. Shall we make the rule take down first, ask questions later? How will that play when a whistle blower's site is taken down for IP violations when Badco claims that the fact that they're dirty cheating scum is their valuable IP?
If I tell your bank that you're a fraud artist, shall they freeze your account and in the process destroy your business? Should they have any duty whatsoever to determine where the money comes from? If banks were held liable for every illegal transaction they unwittingly contribute to, they'd have been out of business a long time ago.
It seems to me that law enforcement and the courts are the ones who are supposed to decide when someone is committing a crime. Then the court should produce a takedown order. Naturally, an ISP ignoring a valid court order would be a very different matter, but until this went to court, all they had was a few letters purporting to be from a foreign company alleging trademark infringement.
The manufacturer, who can speak authoritatively about the bags...
You making the same incorrect assumption that the judge did in this case. Manufacturer has no idea if bags are fake until they buy and test them.
Low price alone does not mean that merchandise is fake. Some items might have been bought on clearance at outlets (which already have pretty good discounts), while others could have been "taken" out of back door in the factory (which alone does not make product a "fake").
On eBay, of instance, luxury manufacturers try to control prices of their products by sending take down notices to everyone who tries to undercut their retail prices. First Sale Doctrine does not seem to apply to people with deep pockets.
The hosting company was approached by the manufacturer of said bags.
The hosting company received emails CLAIMING to be from the manufacturer. They most likely also received a few dozen emails from "Egg Bank", "Bank of America", "Your Bank", and even "support@their-own-domain" that day. Not to mention a few dozen barristers informing them of untold riches that have been willed to them. They may have even received a grant notification from Bill Gates.
I've received personal visits from repo-men claiming that someone I've never heard of lived in my house and had a car I've never seen parked somewhere. Considering that I've lived here since it was built, I doubt their claims but they were quite sincere in their belief.
Using your example, the bank would, or should ask you questions about the alleged fraud. When they find out you're a kook, they hang up on you.
And what if I'm a really convincing kook or a really unconvincing legitimate complainant? Are they doomed to a multi-million dollar loss if they guess wrong? Are you doomed to a loss if they guess wrong?
Neither the bank nor the ISP are empowered to perform criminal investigation, so there's only so much they can do. All they know for a fact is that some guy on the phone says you're a fraud and you say you're not.
Loius Vuitiion (or whatever the hell his name is), makes an over-priced, uber-expensive handbag, and then complains when knock-offs come around? Isn't that capitalism? I also notice that this dude and his bag of lawyers sue or jail everyone selling the stuff.
But not the guys making the stuff.
Because his handbags come out of the same Chinese factory as the knock-offs. That's why most people will never notice that they *are* knock-offs. During daylight hours, the factory produces legitimate "on the books" merchandise, and then the night shift takes over, making the exact same stuff, but "off the books", which are then sold cheap, and shipped off to the rest of the world.
Legitimate copyright holder screams bloody murder, and sues and jails everyone, except the factory, who have already made their profit by selling the knock-offs to the distribution channel. And the guy can't sue or jail the factory in China, because during the day, they make his "real" merchandise.
The Chinese have figured out capitalism pretty well for a communist country. They've got capitalsim down better than the USA, that's for sure.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
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.