German Court Says That Open WiFi Owners Not Responsible For File Sharing Done By Others

from the good-ruling dept

There's been plenty of back and forth over the years concerning the question of whether or not an open WiFi network makes the owner of that network liable for or protected from charges of file sharing by others on that network. Since the entertainment industry can only trace back to the access point, but has no idea who's using that access point, some have always contested that an open WiFi network is a defense against charges of file sharing, since it could be anyone doing the sharing. Others contend that the owners of the open network should be liable for any crimes committed on that network.

A German court has now ruled that open WiFi network owners are not responsible for actions committed by other users on their network. This overrules a lower court decision, which the entertainment industry had been using to threaten people whose IP addresses turned up in file sharing sweeps. This doesn't mean that the owner of the network won't still be hauled off to court, or that they won't eventually be found guilty of infringement -- but if the person can present evidence that others used the network, then they have a defense against charges of file sharing. This seems like a reasonable ruling that hopefully other courts will follow as well.

Filed Under: file sharing, germany, liability, open wifi

Are Companies Responsible For Actions Of Affiliates?

from the lawsuits-galore dept

Back in May we wrote about how shoe store DSW was suing Zappos over potential trademark infringement done by an affiliate -- and now we've got another similar story. The company NameSafe is suing competitor LifeLock over Google ads that make use of NameSafe's name. While we've seen plenty of lawsuits where Google was incorrectly sued over ads based on competitor search terms, this case actually does seem a little more reasonable on those points: rather than suing Google, NameSafe is suing LifeLock, and NameSafe can probably make a half-decent case that the ads could be seen as confusing or deceptive.

However, where this case gets more interesting is on the question of whether LifeLock is to blame -- or if it's the fault of an affiliate marketer, as LifeLock claims. LifeLock says that it terminated the affiliate's account and also reminded all of its affiliates that this type of activity goes against their reseller agreements. That seems like a reasonable response, but for now the lawsuit against LifeLock continues, which will inevitably raise questions about whether or not a company is responsible for the actions of its affiliates and resellers. It seems like common sense to say no -- that the liability should remain with those who actually did the action -- but we've seen stranger decisions from courts before, so it may not be clear cut here.

Filed Under: advertising, affiliates, google ads, liability
Companies: lifelock, namesafe

This Is The New EMI? Trying To Personally Bankrupt CEOs Of Companies It Doesn't Like?

from the how-nice-of-them dept

Last year, a private equity firm took over the major record label EMI and announced that things were going to be different. It wasn't going to be anti-fan. It was going to look on the success stories of Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails not as a threat, but as an opportunity. It even threatened to leave the RIAA and the IFPI unless it pulled back on suing fans. It then went out and hired internet savvy executives who would (hopefully) contribute a different perspective to the running of a major record label.

But, in the midst of all of this, it hasn't really backed down from a variety of ridiculous lawsuits. For example, it's been a part of a lawsuit against an ISP that refuses to spy on its users and cut off those who do unauthorized file sharing. We also noted last year that it had sued Michael Robertson's startup, MP3Tunes. Now we tend to have a lot of fun accusing Robertson of having the same marketing strategy with every company he starts: piss off some established company, get sued. It seems to happen with pretty much every company he starts from MP3.com to Lindows/Linspire to SIPphone. So it really wasn't a huge surprise to see MP3Tunes sued -- though, it's difficult to see how a personal music storage locker that doesn't allow sharing could possibly be infringing.

However, now it appears that the "new" more "friendly" EMI isn't just suing MP3Tunes. According to Boing Boing and Michael Robertson, it's trying to extend the lawsuit to go after Robertson personally, saying that he should be personally liable. As you probably know, one of the purposes of a corporate structure is to limit the liability of the executives of a company. To go after Robertson personally makes very little sense unless the idea is to intimidate. Many executives will quickly settle in such circumstances so as to not open themselves up to such a huge liability. On top of that, the chilling effects are tremendous. Others won't even think of starting innovative services, for fear of being personally liable in a lawsuit.

Unless EMI pulls back its lawyers, I think we can safely conclude that the "new" EMI hasn't really changed much from the old EMI.

Filed Under: ceo liability, liability, michael robertson
Companies: emi, mp3tunes

Woman Sues Google Because Of Scammy Advertiser

from the steve-dallas-lawsuit dept

We've discussed in the past the concept of the "Steve Dallas lawsuit," named after an old Bloom County comic, where the lawyer character Steve Dallas gets beaten up by Sean Penn after trying to take a photo of him. In the comic, Dallas decides to sue Nikon, the maker of the camera, and explains that you always target the company with the most money rather than anyone actually responsible for the situation you're in. That seems to be happening again, as a woman is now suing Google because an ad on Google pointed her to a scammy ringtone provider, who did not clearly indicate what the ringtone would cost. The woman's lawyer is trying to turn this into a class action lawsuit against Google, claiming that it failed to live up to its advertising policies, which forbid ads from companies that don't clearly indicate their fees. It seems rather ridiculous to think that if any scammy company happens to get its ads on Google, that Google is somehow liable. And, yes, while some of those ringtone services may be less-than-honest in how they present their services, why not just protest the charges or (if you really must file a lawsuit) sue the ringtone company?

Filed Under: lawsuits, liability, ringtones, steve dallas
Companies: google

Indian Music Firm Sues Yahoo Over Music Streaming

from the and-this-again dept

There is no DMCA-equivalent in India, apparently, meaning that there are no similar "safe harbors" that protect a service provider from the actions of their users. However, that still doesn't mean one should automatically blame the service provider for a users' actions -- but that's exactly what an Indian court has done. An Indian music company has sued Yahoo and won an injunction barring Yahoo from streaming any of the company's music. While the company had sent complaint letters to Yahoo, Yahoo (reasonably) had asked it to follow the basic takedown procedure, which requires proving that the company properly owns the copyright on the song and then requesting it be taken down.

However, the company says: "it is not possible for the company to spend time and resources to monitor copyright infringements on sharing sites." What they don't explain is why, if the copyright owners themselves can't do it, why they think sites like Yahoo and Google should be able to do it. In fact, it's even more ridiculous when you realize that many musicians want their music on these sites, and Yahoo, Google and others have no way of knowing whether or not a song on their sites has been put their legitimately or not. To have a court demand that Yahoo somehow "figure it out" simply isn't possible, unless it bars all use of music, which hardly seems like a reasonable request.

Filed Under: copyright, india, liability, music, safe harbors
Companies: super cassettes industries, yahoo

MySpace Still Not Liable For Sexual Assault Between Two MySpace Users

from the in-case-you-missed-it-the-first-time dept

Two years ago, we pointed to one of the more ridiculous lawsuits attempting to shift the blame and responsibility for certain actions away from those who were responsible, to those who had the money. A 13-year-old girl went onto MySpace, lied about her age, and struck up a relationship with an older boy. Eventually, the two agreed to meet, and the girl says that the boy sexually assaulted her. So, obviously, the mother of the 13-year-old girl sued MySpace. It seemed like such a good strategy that the boy accused of rape also considered blaming MySpace. Of course, as you should know by now, section 230 of the CDA (and basic common sense) protects websites from the actions of their users. And, in fact, that's exactly what the judge told the woman and her daughter in tossing out the case.

Rather than understanding the law (and basic responsibility), the mother of course appealed the decision, and even tried to come up with a novel argument for why this wasn't about section 230 at all, by saying that the company was somehow negligent in "policing its premises." Luckily (and not surprisingly) the judge isn't buying it. Eric Goldman lets us know that the appeals court has again sided with MySpace in pointing out that there is no liability for MySpace. They also tried to pull in the recent (somewhat questionable) Roommates.com decision, which was in a different circuit and argued that Roommates.com lost safe harbors because it specifically requested illegal information (which probably wouldn't even apply in this case). However, since appeals are only on the facts argued in the lower court and this was an entirely new argument, the court refused to consider it.

Either way, this still seems like a case where the girl and her mother are blaming the wrong party in trying to squeeze millions of dollars out of MySpace. The best summation of the situation probably comes from the transcript of the original trial court hearing, which the appeals court quoted:

THE COURT: I want to get this straight. You have a 13-year-old girl who lies, disobeys all of the instructions, later on disobeys the warning not to give personal information, obviously, [and] does not communicate with the parent. More important, the parent does not exercise the parental control over the minor. The minor gets sexually abused, and you want somebody else to pay for it? This is the lawsuit that you filed?

MR. ITKIN [Counsel for the Does]: Yes, your Honor.

Filed Under: liability, section 230, sexual assault
Companies: myspace

Bill Would Make Tech Companies Liable For Helping Censor The Internet In Other Countries

from the what-about-censoring-in-the-US? dept

A US Congressional Representative has introduced a new bill that would make it illegal for US tech companies to assist any foreign country in attempting to censor the internet or in handing over data on users to the government except for "legitimate foreign law enforcement purposes." This is targeted at companies such as Cisco, which has supplied some of the technology used in the Great Firewall of China, as well as Yahoo! which got into some hot water for supposedly handing over information to Chinese authorities on some critics of the Chinese government.

While the goal is certainly admirable, the implementation is troublesome. First, it's putting liability on tech companies for something they may not have much knowledge about (how countries are going to use the tech or whether the info is needed for "legitimate foreign law enforcement purposes."). Furthermore, where this is really hypocritical is that the law apparently does not apply to the US as well. While certainly not as bad as some other nations, the US has certainly requested data for questionable reasons, and has also been seen trying to censor parts of the internet at times. While I'm certainly not equating the efforts of US politicians to filter the internet with massive operations such as those seen in China, implementing this type of legislation does seem a bit hypocritical.

Filed Under: censorship, congress, liability

Companies To Be Held Liable For Selling To Online Criminals

from the seems-a-bit-extreme dept

One of the reasons why various safe harbor rules exist is to protect parties who really have nothing to do with any kind of law breaking from being liable for the activities of others. Thus, we don't blame an ISP for the activities of one of its users, even if that user breaks the law. That's both reasonable and fair. Those who want to blame those providers often do so just because it's easier -- or, more commonly, because they somehow think it's better for that service provider to somehow act in the role of the police to make things easier. Something similar seems to be happening with the FTC placing the onus on small businesses to make sure they don't sell to online criminals. Slashdot points us to the news that, starting November 1st, all companies are supposed to compare customer info with a "red flag" list of online identity fraudsters and money launderers. Firms that fail to check may be liable if they end up doing business with "known" criminals. You can understand the reasoning here. It certainly makes it a lot easier for the FTC to try to crack down on these crimes. But it adds significant expense and liability to small businesses for potential crimes in which they were totally uninvolved.

Filed Under: ftc, identity fraud, liability, online criminals, red flag, safe harbors
Companies: ftc

Norwegian ISPs And Consumer Council Fight Back Against Entertainment Industry Threat Letters

from the sorry,-no-can-do dept

∅yvind Kaldestad writes in to point us to a story he wrote for a Norwegian publication, that shows the ongoing trend of the entertainment industry pressuring ISPs in Europe to block file sharing or kick file sharers off their networks. However, in this case, it looks like the ISPs (smartly) are fighting back, and they've got the Norwegian Consumer Council (NCC) at their backs. A law firm representing entertainment industry interests sent letters to various Norwegian ISPs, demanding they send specific letters to those suspected of unauthorized file sharing. The letter requests a signature accepting responsibility for their file sharing activities and renouncing all future unauthorized file sharing. However, the ISPs quickly rejected such letters, and the NCC warned people not to sign such a letter, as it makes the consumer liable for activities they might not actually have committed, and also removes the due process they are entitled to. The NCC also notes that, despite the claims in the letters, the Norwegian ISPs are unlikely to be liable for the actions of its users under both Norwegian and international law. Once again, this seems to be part of a highly coordinated campaign by the entertainment industry (and the IFPI specifically) to get ISPs to be their policemen and to prop up their obsolete business model.

Filed Under: file sharing, isps, liability, norway, threats

IFPI Continues To Pressure ISPs; ISPs Start Pushing Back

from the good-for-them dept

We've seen over the past few months that the IFPI has started a world-wide strategy of suing ISPs for not stopping file sharing. This is silly, of course. An ISP should not be responsible for what people do on its network, and forcing them to cut off a lot of perfectly legal activities just to protect an obsolete business model is especially troublesome. Unfortunately, the IFPI's early successes have only emboldened the group, leading to more pressure and more lawsuits. Luckily, at least some ISPs are standing up to the pressure. TorrentFreak notes that Swedish ISP TeliaSonera is aggressively pushing back against legal threats from the IFPI, noting that it has no legal responsibility to cut off file sharer, and the IFPI is really pushing its luck trying to claim otherwise. Somehow, we doubt that the IFPI is going to give up so easily -- and it certainly would be nice to have an ISP win one of these battles in court, so stay tuned...

Filed Under: file sharing, ifpi, isps, liability
Companies: ifpi, teliasonera