On Fri, 2 Jun 2000, Karsten M. Self <kmself[_at_]ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> The statute is written in terms of what doesn't happen if the ISP
> (service provider) complies with 512(c)(1)(C). By applying the
> negative, the service provider *is* liable for monetary or injunctive
> relief if they do not comply with section (C).
The act (at least in this section) does not create liability where none would otherwise exist. The legislative history makes clear that the purpose is not to impose new causes of action, rather to limit possible claims against online service providers. Thus, the conclusion that if an ISP does not comply does not necessarily follow.
Brad Englund
Halverson & Applegate, P.S.
Yakima, WA
benglund[_at_]halversonlaw.com
Received on Tue Jun 06 2000 - 07:31:04 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:39 GMT