|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 17:10:50 -0500 From: jamie <j@arpa.com> To: nanog@wbsconnect.com Cc: nanog@nanog.org Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org Wrong, wrong, wrong, Dr. Wrongy W. Wrongenstein. If you're served with notice that you have a downstream customer /conductin= g business that's illegal or tortious/ , you can't ignore it.. IANAL(yet), but ISPs don't really enjoy the same rights as "public carriers= " s/a telcos. And in this case, ISP didnt act to protect itself under safe-harbor. They just liked the cash. They're not responsible for inspecting "tens of millions of packets per second". Where'd that come from? They _are_ responsible for ignoring FedEx'd documents containing C&Ds / notices of infringement. Some 15 violations, if you read the decision. (C07-03952JW) Jury findings: 10: "Did [Louis Vuitton] prove that [ISP] knew ... that one or more of (their) customers were using (their services) to directly infringe the copyrights of [Vuitton] and that (ISP could still provide services but not the infringing website(s))?" -YES- 12: "Did [ISP] (act in a manner that would protect them under DMCA Safe Harbor"? -NO- 13: "Did [ISP] (do this willfully)?" -YES- Your business break the law in the name of the Dollar, your business will pay. That's the precedent here. And, btw, "How do I configure my router for legal discussions on nanog-L?" OT. -j On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 4:35 PM, <nanog@wbsconnect.com> wrote: > > http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Louis-Vuitton-Awarded-324-bw-3561952192.htm= l?x=3D0&.v=3D1 > > NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. (=93Louis Vuitto= n=94) > part of LVMH, the world=92s leading luxury group, today announced that it= has > won the lawsuit it filed in 2007 against the California based Internet > hosting business of Akanoc Solutions, Inc., Managed Solutions Group, Inc.= , > and Steven Chen (the =93Akanoc Defendants=94) in the United States Distri= ct > Court, Northern District of California (San Jose). On August 28th, the ju= ry > found the Akanoc Defendants liable for contributory trademark and copyrig= ht > infringement, and awarded statutory damages in the amount of $32,400,000.= 00. > The court is expected shortly to issue a permanent injunction banning the > Akanoc Defendants from hosting websites that sell counterfeit or infringi= ng > Louis Vuitton goods. > > Any and all nefarious activity alleged in this lawsuit was conducted by a > customer, of a customer, of a customer yet the hosting provider was found > liable, not the actual criminal manufacturing and selling the fakes. > > We had all better watch our backs since it seems that claims of not being > able to inspected tens of millions of packets per second is no longer a > viable excuse. > >
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |