$32 Million Trademark Infringement Case

That's BS. Why the web host if they are not responsible for the content we put in their servers.

My first thought was "wow this is preposterous" but then when reading the article, it came a little clearer: The Web Hosts were made aware by Vuitton that the sites they were hosting were selling counterfeit goods, but they did nothing about it.

This is definitely going to make a number of web hosts pee their pants. We'll probably see a few accounts being closed.

I agree with you that unethical users should be shut down. The problem is going after the web hosting company company who is not responsible for what their users post according to previous law that covers ISP.

A web host IS an ISP!

With out web hosts, there is no web.

I think it falls under some law of knowingly permitting unlawful activity to take place. They knew it was going on and chose to ignore the warning shot; that's a lot different from not knowing anything about it.

They were stupid. You get a cease and desist from the legal representation of a big company over serious criminal activity going on with sites you host, you wake the hell up and pay attention or face the consequences, it's as simple as that.

I don't think ordinary web hosts have much to worry about.

I got as friendly note from my local newspaper one day saying they did not appreciate me putting their RSS article feed on my web site. They asked me politely to cease violating their copyright.

I wrote back: "Sure, thanks for bringing it to my attention. I took it down." They went away. Chances are Louis Vitton would have gone away too if the web hosts had done the proper thing and shut the violating sites down.

I say they made their own problems and they deserve what they get. There's more than a thin line between free speech and dishonest speech..

I think it falls under some law of knowingly permitting unlawful activity to take place.

MANY private companies do the same each and every day.

The point is that the Communication Decency Act of 1996 hold ISPs harmless from the postings of a 3RD party.

I didn't think an ISP and a web host are not the same. An ISP allows me to connect to the internet which connects to a site hosted by a web host. Without my ISP I can't connect to a web host.

Greenovni - you say down with the unethical losers but feel that the web host shouldn't be held accountable. What happens if someone blatantly steals your product/work, you contact their webhost and they refuse to take it down even after you've produced legal claim to the product? Would you not feel shafted by the webhost?

@Teresa_C Yes, I would be upset but I can't hold them responsible according to the Communication Decency Act of 1996.

If that was the case, even this forum would cease to exist if someone talks bad, defames etc another person.

There have been many threads here with items like:

Google Money Tree (Which clearly is using the Google trade mark)
Make money with ebay (eBay trademark)

etc

Allen is not responsible for the postings of a 3rd party according to the Communication Decency Act of 1996

The Warrior forum itself falls under the ISP clause, so did web hosting companies, blogs, forums etc.

The person creating the content is the one responsible for whatever he put online.

While I agree with most of the other posts that decry contributory behavior to fraudulent internet activity, in this case I'm not completely sure of all of the facts nor did the article explain the damage figure. For example what other sites was this company hosting? Was this an aberrant website or typical of the sites they hosted e.g. did they host other sites selling fake goods? Did the website owner provide the hosting company with answers to Louis Vitton's claim? And what damages and losses did Louis Vitton attribute to the actions of this company?

In any case, I am quite sure that this jury award is going to be appealed minimally to the Ninth Circuit and perhaps to the Supreme Court. I see many issues at stake with this case. Many times what appears to be a clear-cut case turns out to be very murky once you dissect the details.

Small point but jury awards are not fines.

Tsnyder

Hi George,

Basically, it's a person registered w/ the copyright office and the website(s) list this person as the contact for notices of infringements.

It's only good for ISPs and creates a safe harbor provided certain conditions are met.

I'm trying to figure out the form so I can register for a few sites of mine.

You can read about it at:
U.S. Copyright Office - Online Service Providers

Garrie

There may be something hiding here in all of the legalease and gibberish.

If you set up a hosting account on a shared server, anybody offering that service is likely to have verbage in their "rental agreement" that states they can shut you off for any number of reasons, including if they get a DCMA or CDA notice. Their motivation is to protect the other users on that server.

OTOH, if you rent a dedicated server and host some sites that are risky or you think might offend somebody, then who's the "host provider"? Wouldn't that be YOU? Or, if you're smart, it would be a separate business entity that you control.

(And your "registered agent" would be the same person/agency listed on your corporation or LLC papers filed with the state.)

The DATA CENTER is not likely going to be held liable for renting a box and hooking it to their data pipe. That's like saying a city is responsible for someone dying in a "crack house" that caught fire just because it was within the city's limits.

If you and your "alter ego", in the guise of two separate business entities, conspire to host sites on dedicated servers that you deliberately set up to take advantage of well-known trademarks, then you ignore complaints submitted under DCMA or CDA thinking you're protected under some ISP safe-harbor provisions, you deserve to get body-slammed IMHO!

Now, I'm sure there are people reading this that have no clue what I'm talking about. And it's also likely that most news reporters and others wouldn't know the difference between "someone leasing a dedicated server" (as a business entity) and a "host provider" (as a service), assuming the "host provider" is someone who rents out shared hosting accounts to hundreds of clients.

How many clients does the average dedicated server have? One? Two? Not "hundreds" ... unless they ARE acting as a shared-service hosting provider.

-David