What's your take on this infringement verdict?

We had the story covered in our blog as well:
http://www.hostingdiscussion.com/blo...osted-content/

That's in addition to our recent conversation about hosting providers' liability when it comes to actual service performance (loss of data). I think that if the host was made liable for hosting content, same damages are possible for loss of data. I guess it all comes down to what the judge says.

I'm not seeing the logical leap from knowingly hosting illegal content to damages for loss of data. In any event, I think this will ultimately be decided further up the legal chain, rather than by one judge or jury. The implications are far too reaching.

Well, you are right on that. I searched the web the other day for known data loss cases and could not come up with anything solid.
But it doesn't hurt to have hope.

I'm sure this will get thrown out - or reduced.

In order to file a DMCA Complaint, a person can submit via email/forms but and they also send a written letter (usually from a legal dept). At that point, the host gets to inform the customer and/or shutdown the website for infringement of their own TOS (unless they allow that kind of stuff).

As mentioned in the article, how do you determine with the articles were REAL or FAKE. Granted, the moment you use the image, that's copyrighted (unless they took their own image).

I see this being apealed. I don't see how someone is responsible for another persons actions. Now if they were informed of the event, and they choose not to do anything, that's a different story.

Just read the blog - I should start reading it daily. What's not clear to me at all is the providers responsibility to have even a general knowledge of what's on their customer's servers. Of course, there's a responsibility when it's brought to their attention, as evidenced in this case.

"you may now be expected to proactively police all your customers".. I would be okay with this to some extent, but where do you draw the line between "policing" and "privacy"?

If someone reports it and I discover in fact that there is illegal content removing it is a no brain'r. But if I knew and did nothing I'd expect to be liable.

Actively searching content even with the best intent would invalidate the privacy of most clients and their users, especially to those who ether run online/offline commerce through your servers.

An understandable level of monitoring, browsing websites and responding to violation reports is understandable however actively policing user forums/blogs etc would only cause more issues. Im of no doubt that it will be appealed as Conor stated.

This is a very interesting topic. I would have to agree with Conor & Steve that this will be tossed. If I receive a DMCA notice, I send it to the customer and provide them 24 hours to remove the content. If they do not respond back within 24 hours the box or the account is suspended. If they still don't want to fix it, they are terminated.

To go as far as, legal liability for web hosts is a little out there. That is like being able to name the car dealership in a lawsuit because the car they sold the guy cause a accident because the driver was drunk.

Hmmm.... I don't remember saying I thought it would be tossed. I do believe it will be appealled though.

Sorry Steve, appealed, tosses, its all the same. I was thinking quicker and typing with 16 things going on.

How far do you go with the policing? what if the image is stored within a database? I think it is a ridiculous idea to regularly go through client's files.

If you receive a complaint yes, but if not you can't go looking for it!

I think it should be the responsibility of the person who is listed as domain owner who is liable not the web host!

This is definitely going to be an interesting case to follow although I'm a bit confused about the nature of the infringement. Was that host's client impersonating them or illegally using trademarked images to promote their products (which isn't that legal if a disclaimer is added saying that it's used within "fair use")?

all i can say is wow....

No way they have that kind of money..