Results 1 to 25 of 26
-
09-02-2009, 09:43 PM #1Web Hosting Evangelist
- Join Date
- Aug 2006
- Location
- UK
- Posts
- 540
Web Host Ordered To Pay $32M For Contributing To Trademark Infringement
Originally Posted by Computerworld
This has far reaching implications for all web hosts► Host to avoid at all costs - Real Web Host ◄
Mouse potato - The online generations version of a couch potato
-
09-02-2009, 09:50 PM #2Junior Guru
- Join Date
- Oct 2006
- Location
- Pittsburgh, PA
- Posts
- 242
that's pretty interesting. Thanks for sharing it!
Jon Stephenson
-
09-02-2009, 10:01 PM #3Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jan 2006
- Posts
- 587
If the hosts knew that the sites were there and didn't take them down, that's the price they pay.
I'm part of the Chicago Breast Cancer 3 Day!
Because Everyone Deserves a Lifetime.
-
09-02-2009, 10:11 PM #4Retired Moderator
- Join Date
- Oct 2002
- Location
- EU - east side
- Posts
- 21,920
If the hosts knew that the sites were there and didn't take them down, that's the price they pay.
-
09-02-2009, 10:19 PM #5Aspiring Evangelist
- Join Date
- Apr 2009
- Location
- New Jersey
- Posts
- 367
The websites were selling knock-offs, fake. I think I can go take the guy at the mall who sold me a pair of $70 knock-off sun-glasses last weekend to court and get a nice chunk of change. When you go to the shore or something you see a lot of stands selling stuff that looks similar to the real stuff, should they be taken to the court, looks the same. I think there is much more to the story than what was stated in the article.
-
09-02-2009, 10:29 PM #6Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jun 2006
- Location
- Devon, UK
- Posts
- 1,307
In the end, they didn't remove the content in a reasonable amount of time, if they did, they wouldn't be facing this fine. I do agree with Dan though, in that ISPs should not be judge and jury as to who is uploading illegal content and who is uploading legal content.
-
09-02-2009, 10:35 PM #7Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Feb 2002
- Location
- Australia
- Posts
- 24,027
Exactly. Why folks expect the host to be essentially judge and jury, is beyond me. I've been caught in some situations where one party is not happy with another party and they're trying to force to me to take action against the other party on their behalf. "Come back with a court order, or a legal document", is my usual response. I never hear back from them.
• WLVPN.com • NetProtect owned White Label VPN provider •
• Increase your hosting profits by adding VPN to your product line up •
-
09-03-2009, 04:27 AM #8Junior Guru
- Join Date
- Apr 2003
- Location
- Los Angeles, CA
- Posts
- 245
I usually do the same as Aussie Bob, but I try and go on a case by case basis. If I received a notice from the Louis Vuitton corporate offices, I'd give it a second look.
-
09-03-2009, 06:11 AM #9Junior Guru
- Join Date
- May 2009
- Posts
- 215
If hosts are being taken to court for what websites they are hosting have done then you should be able to take the mall to court for allowing them to sell.
Hosts can't always know if what the websites are doing is legit. If there's evidence they knew what was going on then maybe.
-
09-03-2009, 06:16 AM #10Aspiring Evangelist
- Join Date
- Apr 2009
- Location
- New Jersey
- Posts
- 367
That is why I think there is more to the story than what is being said. I also think I am going to go to the mall this Saturday and tell the guy I am going to take him to court as some company did for a web host and got some big bucks. If I was awarded 32 Million, I would then be able to afford 47,000+ real louis Vuitton sun-glasses even though I purchased a different brand the point was that it was a knock-off.
-
09-03-2009, 06:51 AM #11Aspiring Evangelist
- Join Date
- Jul 2005
- Posts
- 447
I think you might find that it doesn't work like that. The compensation mentioned in the original thread was not for purchasers but for the proprietor.
If you purchase illegal goods you are potentially just as liable as the person who sold them to you if it can be established that you knew about it beforehand. In either instance, you would not get any compensation so could not sue the illegal vendor.
-
09-03-2009, 07:50 AM #12Junior Guru
- Join Date
- May 2009
- Posts
- 215
There probably is more to it. They may have known about it or been benefitting from it themselves.
-
09-03-2009, 09:17 AM #13Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Apr 2001
- Location
- Pittsburgh, PA
- Posts
- 1,306
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...fe-harbors.ars
"According to Louis Vuitton's July 2008 complaint, Chen's companies 'were formed for and exist primarily to facilitate the promotion and advertisement of offers for counterfeit and infringing merchandise.' The ISPs hosted a huge array of sites offering fake Vuitton purses, wallets, and bags--"
Kevin
-
09-03-2009, 09:51 AM #14Retired Moderator
- Join Date
- Jan 2005
- Location
- Darwin, Australia
- Posts
- 1,339
Link to full article
"They further said that Chen and his companies had been informed of the activity by Louis Vuitton but still refused to implement a policy for removing the offending sites, which was their responsibility"
If they were given information, but chose to leave the sites up, I have no sympathy for them.Web Hosting Plus
Premium Australian Web Hosting
-
09-03-2009, 07:09 PM #15Newbie
- Join Date
- Sep 2009
- Location
- Sydney
- Posts
- 11
Here's betting that no-one will ever see the $32M ... the hosts/sites/proprietors will disappear and pop up again somewhere less litigious
-
09-03-2009, 08:55 PM #16Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Aug 2002
- Posts
- 1,612
Yea right like this guy is actually going to pay that...
-
09-03-2009, 08:55 PM #17Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Aug 2002
- Posts
- 1,612
If he had 32 million to pay..he wouldnt be hosting fake counterfeit sites in the first place.
-
09-03-2009, 08:57 PM #18Aspiring Evangelist
- Join Date
- Jul 2005
- Posts
- 447
There is no way this guy will pay out. However, it will definitely make wind his neck in.
-
09-03-2009, 09:05 PM #19Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jun 2006
- Location
- NYC / Memphis, TN
- Posts
- 1,454
Louis Vuitton claimed that Chen and his hosting companies were contributing to the illegal activities by providing the infrastructure that enabled the sale of counterfeit goods. They further said that Chen and his companies had been informed of the activity by Louis Vuitton but still refused to implement a policy for removing the offending sites, which was their responsibility.≈ PeakVPN.Com | Complete Privacy VPN | Cloud Hosting | Guaranteed Security | 1Gbps-10Gbps Unmetered
≈ PeakVPN | 31 VPN Servers | 17-Years Experience | Emergency 24/7 Support
≈ Visit us @ PeakVPN.Com (Coming SOON) | ASN: 3915
-
09-03-2009, 09:06 PM #20Web Hosting Evangelist
- Join Date
- Sep 2008
- Location
- New York, US
- Posts
- 490
Interestingly according to their AUP, that kind of thing is prohibited. I wonder if they included it just to cover their tracks.
http://pastie.org/605287 <-- translated AUP.Brook Hollow Brands
-
09-03-2009, 09:19 PM #21Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Apr 2002
- Location
- Auckland - New Zealand
- Posts
- 1,575
The point being, that the Jury expect an ISP to actually enforce their AUP or TOS, not just hide behind it
Does seem a tad excessive US$32 million, I think the world has gone mad ..
-
09-03-2009, 09:24 PM #22Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jul 2002
- Posts
- 2,240
Is this a small time host that is being sued? Man it would suck to be in that boat. I'm betting his is getting ready to file for bankruptcy. Poor guy.
Download my eBook + Videos: Starting your own successful web hosting company.
Learn from a web host with 7 years of experience.
-
09-03-2009, 09:26 PM #23Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Apr 2002
- Location
- Auckland - New Zealand
- Posts
- 1,575
Also note, that the plaintiffs here paid lawyers gazillions of $$ to find a loop-hole to get around the safe-harbor provision in the DMCA.. they actually got the award for 'Contributory trademark violation'.
The copyright laws/trademark laws need an overhaul.
The arguement that an ISP is not judge and jury, is correct. They aren't, but sadly, look at ISP's like this one and IINet who were in trouble for peer to peer content sharde on their network. Section 92a was vigourously opposed in nz when parliament tried to push it through this last year, but voices were heard and they were forced to abandon it how it was and look at other ways to implement it.
-
09-03-2009, 09:41 PM #24Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- May 2007
- Posts
- 2,745
That is My Dedicated Server Provider
Last edited by respite; 09-03-2009 at 09:46 PM.
-
09-03-2009, 09:46 PM #25Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- May 2007
- Posts
- 2,745
Akanoc Solutions Inc., Managed Solutions Group Inc
http://akanoc.com <-- Chinese Brand
http://dediwebhost.com <-- American Brand
http://racklogic.com <-- Lowend server configs sales
Also one other brand for colo sales... I cannot remember it though...
Similar Threads
-
What to do with a domain trademark infringement?
By ScottJ in forum Running a Web Hosting BusinessReplies: 16Last Post: 11-12-2006, 08:08 PM -
Trademark Infringement on my domain?
By CarlU in forum Domain NamesReplies: 13Last Post: 09-27-2006, 06:19 AM -
is this a case of trademark infringement?
By grabmail in forum Running a Web Hosting BusinessReplies: 8Last Post: 06-09-2006, 07:32 PM -
RackSpace banner. Trademark infringement?
By macdonaldp in forum Web HostingReplies: 15Last Post: 07-13-2005, 02:36 PM -
Trademark Infringement on a domain name
By gordonw in forum Domain NamesReplies: 3Last Post: 03-24-2004, 07:24 AM