| |
LeliseGobenaFirstPaper 3 - 31 Mar 2013 - Main.EbenMoglen
|
|
META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
| |
< < | =Caught in The Crosshair: The Rise of Secondary Liability for E-Commerce Providers" | > > | Caught in The Crosshairs: The Rise of Secondary Liability for E-Commerce Providers | | By: LeliseGobena - 22 Oct 2012
Introduction | | Potential Implications
The potential implications the abovementioned line of cases may have for internet service providers, web hosts, online retailers, and others involved directly, or indirectly, in the online sale of counterfeit merchandise is expansive and has lead me to question whether or not the policy driving the law to hold these entities liable for their affiliates’ intellectual property infringement is sound. In fact, this policy is downright abusive. It is inherently unjust to require Internet intermediaries to take preventative or proactive measures to step into the shoes of law enforcement officials and police their affiliates. While I recognize that the effort, time, and money needed to individually identify, track, and sue primary infringers is extensive and inefficient, to do the alternative by casting a dangerously wide net that holds host websites responsible for the actions of their affiliates will have disastrous implications and will inevitably push society down a very slippery slope as intellectual property owners such as Louis Vuitton will inevitably try to continue to expand the boundaries of secondary liability by suing any and every party involved in some manner in the sale, whether it be advertisers, payment providers, shippers, or other activities relating to such goods.
\ No newline at end of file | |
> > |
This draft is long with the statements of facts in trial court
litigation. They don't really help to evaluate the conclusion,
which seems to come out of nowhere. Evidently, there are forms of
complicity between people selling infringing goods and others with
whom they deal (financiers, landlords, etc.) that would be
sufficient to justify imposition of legal liability. Doubtless,
there are also cases in which parties with the same legal category
of relationship to the parties selling infringing goods are not
complicit and should not be liable in any way. If those differences
are matters of fact, surely litigation at the margins will be
necessary to resolve the issue. If the differences in treatment can
be resolved as a matter of law you don't say how. It seems to me
that we don't need quite so much of the facts in individual cases as
we need some analytical progress in determining how to exit the
pattern whose flaws you describe.
| | \ No newline at end of file |
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors. All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|
| |