posted on November 13, 2000 06:09:33 AM
From today's New York Times:
"In a decision that could set the stage for
how courts respond to accusations of fraud
in online auctions, a state judge in San
Francisco ruled last week that eBay could not
be held liable for bootlegged music sold
using its Web site.
The ruling, by Judge Stuart R. Pollak,
cites a section of a 1996 federal law,
the Communications Decency Act, which
says that interactive computer services
are not liable for material published on
their networks."
The article goes on to say that
"the ruling that eBay, the online auction
service, qualifies for the same immunity is
the first time that the 1996 law has been
applied to an e-commerce Web site ..."
posted on November 13, 2000 08:20:19 AM
[i]The ruling, by Judge Stuart R. Pollak,
cites a section of a 1996 federal law,
the Communications Decency Act, which
says that interactive computer services
are not liable for material published on
their networks[/i]
This seems to run in direct contradition to the Napster decision, doesn't it?
posted on November 13, 2000 01:28:28 PM
If they are not liable then why do they shutdown certain auctions only? In my mind, if they shutdown a few of these, they are setting precendent and they should shut them all down. Unless, of course, they are willing to defend their decision to shut some of them down and not others. It looks to me like the illegal auctions that survive are those listed by the big-time sellers only ... Wonder why???
