Hold on a sec. This is a really dense statement that calls for unpacking. WPPS is the domain name registrant on behalf of an undisclosed imperative. It doesn’t “handle” the domain name. Even if it did, the normal test for vicarious infringement requires the “right and ability to supervise the infringing actions.
” How does a privacy proxy do this?It controls the domain name, not the linked servers. See the old 9th Circuit ruling in Lockheed v. NSI. And usually vicarious infringement calls for an instantaneous economic benefit from the infringement. Sure, as a service provider, the privacy proxy gets paid by the web page operator–but the fee quantities don’t vary with the quantity of infringement. This is like saying the electric brand gets paid by an alleged infringer to supply power to the infringing web page.
Yes, the electric powered brand gets paid, but no, that’s not direct economic advantage from the infringement. Ironically, the fact is higher infringing endeavor might boost the quantity of electrical intake, so the electric brand is much more likely to profit from infringement than a privacy proxy. Traditionally, contributory I didn’t see any allegations of advantage by the ad networks at all–no assertions that the ad networks had found out that Pharmatext,org was a rogue web page, and no assertions that the I don’t think the ad networks qualify for a 512 safe harbor because of the way those safe harbors are worded; but a CandD/takedown notice would still help the publishers in arguing that the ad networks knew it was a rogue web page. The ad networks’ only “contribution” to the infringement is the fee of money to the positioning, and this was expressly rejected as sufficient for legal responsibility in Perfect 10 v. Visa, which concluded that even when the payment system stopped the flow of money, it doesn’t instantly stop the web page and any associated infringement on it. Meanwhile, this case illustrates two broad themes.
First, it illustrates how plaintiffs are going after an array of helping carrier providers to cause them to guilty for their clients’ actions. On the trademark front in the past one year, see, e. g. , Louis Vuitton v. Akanoc web hosts, Gucci v. Frontline fee provider providers, Roger Cleveland v.
Price web designers/SEO, Microsoft v. Shah program providers that assist website advancement. Plaintiffs are reading secondary liability doctrines very, very largely, and courts aren’t always slamming down those arguments as emphatically as they should.