Beware: a very bad precedent set
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Louis-Vuitton-Awarded-324-bw-3561952192.html?x=0&.v=1 NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. (“Louis Vuitton”) part of LVMH, the world’s 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 “Akanoc Defendants”) in the United States District Court, Northern District of California (San Jose). On August 28th, the jury found the Akanoc Defendants liable for contributory trademark and copyright 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 infringing 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.
nanog@wbsconnect.com wrote:
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.
Hmmm. I thought DMCA made it quite clear that a service provider cannot ignore reports. "The Akanoc Defendants’ specific business model of providing unmanaged server capacity to web hosting resellers does not exempt them from taking active steps to effectively prevent infringing activity upon notification from an intellectual property rights owner. " I consider that the more important statement in the article. The "upon notification" being the largest issue. Don't know if DMCA covers anything outside the scope of copyright, but I think it's been generally accepted that ignoring reports of infringement can bring about liability. Jack
In message <4A9C45D2.1000605@brightok.net>, Jack Bates writes:
nanog@wbsconnect.com wrote:
Any and all nefarious activity alleged in this lawsuit was conducted by a c ustomer, of a customer, of a customer yet the hosting provider was found liab le, not the actual criminal manufacturing and selling the fakes.
We had all better watch our backs since it seems that claims of not being a ble to inspected tens of millions of packets per second is no longer a viable excuse.
Hmmm. I thought DMCA made it quite clear that a service provider cannot ignore reports.
"The Akanoc Defendants’ specific business model of providing unmanaged server capacity to web hosting resellers does not exempt them from taking active steps to effectively prevent infringing activity upon notification from an intellectual property rights owner. "
I consider that the more important statement in the article. The "upon notification" being the largest issue. Don't know if DMCA covers anything outside the scope of copyright, but I think it's been generally accepted that ignoring reports of infringement can bring about liability.
Jack
It will be interesting to see the court cases against ISP's that don't shutdown other illegal activities once they have been notified. abuse@ better not be a blackhole or you are putting yourself at risk based on this. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
How does this stuff ever make it to court??? Why is it an ISP is responsible for policing it's customers? I'm constantly getting called up from scammers trying to offering me bogus warranty insurance for cars I don't own...does that mean I can sue Verizon because they are letting scammers use their network? It doesn't mention anything in the article,. but I'm wondering if the ISP received a court order to shut down the customer and ignored it, then I can see why the ISP lost the case.
It will be interesting to see the court cases against ISP's that don't shutdown other illegal activities once they have been notified. abuse@ better not be a blackhole or you are putting yourself at risk based on this.
Mark
On Aug 31, 2009, at 5:29 PM, Bret Clark wrote:
How does this stuff ever make it to court??? Why is it an ISP is responsible for policing it's customers? I'm constantly getting called up from scammers trying to offering me bogus warranty insurance for cars I don't own...does that mean I can sue Verizon because they are letting scammers use their network?
It doesn't mention anything in the article,. but I'm wondering if the ISP received a court order to shut down the customer and ignored it, then I can see why the ISP lost the case.
It will be interesting to see the court cases against ISP's that don't shutdown other illegal activities once they have been notified. abuse@ better not be a blackhole or you are putting yourself at risk based on this.
Mark
As was pointed out very early on, you as an xSP do not enjoy common carrier status from the FCC like an ILEC would receive, now whether that is right or wrong is another matter of debate.... -- Robin D. Rodriguez Ifbyphone, Inc. rrodriguez@ifbyphone.com
Bret Clark wrote:
How does this stuff ever make it to court??? Why is it an ISP is responsible for policing it's customers? I'm constantly getting called up from scammers trying to offering me bogus warranty insurance for cars I don't own...does that mean I can sue Verizon because they are letting scammers use their network?
It doesn't mention anything in the article,. but I'm wondering if the ISP received a court order to shut down the customer and ignored it, then I can see why the ISP lost the case.
There's a world of difference between proactive policing and acting reactively on receipt of notice that your customers are doing specific badness... or not. Poggs
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 08:12:33 +1000 Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote:
In message <4A9C45D2.1000605@brightok.net>, Jack Bates writes:
Any and all nefarious activity alleged in this lawsuit was conducted by a c ustomer, of a customer, of a customer yet the hosting provider was found liab le, not the actual criminal manufacturing and selling
nanog@wbsconnect.com wrote: the fakes.
We had all better watch our backs since it seems that claims of not being a
ble to inspected tens of millions of packets per second is no longer a viable excuse.
Hmmm. I thought DMCA made it quite clear that a service provider cannot ignore reports.
"The Akanoc Defendants___ specific business model of providing unmanaged server capacity to web hosting resellers does not exempt them from taking active steps to effectively prevent infringing activity upon notification from an intellectual property rights owner. "
I consider that the more important statement in the article. The "upon notification" being the largest issue. Don't know if DMCA covers anything outside the scope of copyright, but I think it's been generally accepted that ignoring reports of infringement can bring about liability.
Jack
It will be interesting to see the court cases against ISP's that don't shutdown other illegal activities once they have been notified. abuse@ better not be a blackhole or you are putting yourself at risk based on this.
..and not before time. -- John
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 5:51 PM, Jack Bates<jbates@brightok.net> wrote:
"The Akanoc Defendants’ specific business model of providing unmanaged server capacity to web hosting resellers does not exempt them from taking active steps to effectively prevent infringing activity upon notification from an intellectual property rights owner. "
I consider that the more important statement in the article. The "upon notification" being the largest issue. Don't know if DMCA covers anything outside the scope of copyright, but I think it's been generally accepted that ignoring reports of infringement can bring about liability.
Does anyone have a link to the decision? If you go to http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2009/01/web_host_faces.htm and click on "Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. Akanoc Solutions, Inc." you can get an earlier decision regarding Akanoc's motion for summary judgement in the case. Reading between the lines, it sounds like Akanoc had a customer who put a server in their facility. This customer then hosted a bunch of sites including the ones that infringed. On receiving a complaint, Akanoc contacted the customer and more or less said, kill this website or we unplug your server. Then the customer shuffled the site around to another of his servers. Have a look at pages 10 through 12. Page 12 lines 11-13, it reads to me like the judge made a serious error trying to understand the difference between a web site and an IP address. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 6:47 PM, William Herrin <herrin-nanog@dirtside.com>wrote:
Does anyone have a link to the decision?
that is so sad.... makes me very angry reading this. -g ________________________________________ From: nanog@wbsconnect.com [nanog@wbsconnect.com] Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 5:35 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Beware: a very bad precedent set http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Louis-Vuitton-Awarded-324-bw-3561952192.html?x=0&.v=1 NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. (“Louis Vuitton”) part of LVMH, the world’s 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 “Akanoc Defendants”) in the United States District Court, Northern District of California (San Jose). On August 28th, the jury found the Akanoc Defendants liable for contributory trademark and copyright 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 infringing 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.
participants (10)
-
Bret Clark -
Greg Whynott -
Jack Bates -
jamie -
John Peach -
Mark Andrews -
nanog＠wbsconnect.com -
Peter Hicks -
Robin Rodriguez -
William Herrin