Re: ruling: liability for providers who don't act on clients' illegal activities?

[Gadi Evron <ge () linuxbox org>]

Gadi Evron wrote:
> Jury Exacts $32M Penalty From ISPs For Supporting Criminal Websites
> http://darkreading.com/securityservices/security/cybercrime/showArticle.jhtml 

Corrected URL:
http://darkreading.com/securityservices/security/cybercrime/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=5P4BO3EZ4TBL3QE1GHPSKH4ATMY32JVN?articleID=219501314



> 'Landmark case' indicates that ISPs may be held liable if they know 
> about criminal activity on their customers' Websites and fail to act
>
> A federal jury in California this week levied a total of $32 million in 
> damages from two Internet service providers that knowingly supported 
> Websites that were running illegal operations.
>
> In a lawsuit brought by fashion company Louis Vuitton, a jury ruled that 
> two ISPs -- Akanoc Solutions and Managed Solutions Group -- knew about 
> counterfeit Vuitton goods that were being sold on their customers' 
> sites, but didn't act quickly to pull the plug on those sites. The 
> decision was first reported on Tuesday.
>
> The ruling has been called a landmark decision by some legal experts, 
> who note that ISPs historically have been protected by the Digital 
> Millennium Copyright Act, which limits service providers' liability for 
> criminal actions that take place on their networks.