Internet Piracy (Clarification)

I can see I didn't make one aspect clear enough.

On Mon, 14 Jun 1999, Patrick Begos <begos[_at_]ibm.net> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 13 Jun 1999, C.E. Petit <cepetit[_at_]usa.net> wrote:
> >
> > (b) Service 2 has several "flavors" of sites. If Infringer 2 opens an
> > infringing site on one of these other "flavors," is Service 2 willfully
> > abetting infringement by failing to screen out either Infringer 2 in
> > general, or the infringing material specifically?
>
> I say no. My understanding of the law (and I'll admit I haven't gone
> back and read it), is that a true service provider (differntiating the
> AOL situation; or was it Compuserve or Prodigy?) isn't, and shouldn't
> be, liable for violation by their customers, unless and until that
> particular violation is brought to their attention. The idea is that
> service providers can't, and shouldn't have to, screen the web sites of
> their customers. As long as the service provider kills the infringing
> site after a complaint is filed, I think the service provider is free
> of liability.
>
> I suppose a different situation could arise if, say, a service provider
> marketed itself as a haven for copyright infringers, or if, like AOL, it
> actually did review the content of sites it services (I believe AOL was
> in the context of chat rooms). But if an infringer just signs up for
> different flavors of service offered by the provider, I don't see an
> obligation to review content.

I did not make Service 2's structure clear enough. Imagine, for a moment, a "GM" of ISPs that has one Office of General Counsel, one Complaints About Service Office, etc... but "brands" its different services with different names ("Chevy," "Buick," etc.) (and no disparagement of GM is intended; it is just a convenient example). Thus, a complaint about the "Chevy" site goes to the same people as would handle a complaint about the "Buick" site; they have (word for word) identical service agreements, etc.; and I'm not at all certain--there's no way to ascertain short of litigation and discovery--if there is even the flimsiest of corporate veils between the "flavors."

Terry Carroll <carroll[_at_]tjc.com> also notes that I may have implied that I believe that Service 1 has "common carrier" status. I meant to say that Service 1 claims to be a "common carrier." And I understand that 512(c) is a critical section, but getting from situation 1 to 512(c) is the hard part.

Finally, in the first scenario, my client didn't want damages; she wants protection from future publication without authorization.

C.E. Petit
<cepetit[_at_]usa.net> Received on Wed Jun 16 1999 - 04:22:57 GMT