The EU Court of Justice has ruled that"the operator of an online market place (in this case e-bay) could be responsible for the unlawful sales on iys website of goods in breach of the rights of a trademark proprietor. even though it had not played an active role in promoting such sales, if it was aware of facts on the basis of whicj a diligent economic operator should have realised that the offers for sale were unlawful and that it failed to act propmtly to remove the data or disable access to them" Another small step in the right direction.

I don't know. How much effort is a "diligent economic operator" (love these EU terms) supposed to expend in hunting down trademark violators?scott s..

I imagine they don't have to hunt them down, just act promptly to remove offending items if the trademark rights-holder complains. If someone is selling unlicensed Mickey Mouse sweatshirts for example, Disney complains, and Ebay ignores the complaint, then Ebay can be charged -- that's the way I read this.

Similar to the YouTube copyright complaints as they just remove the video. Ebay could just start removing any of those items that Disney or whoever else has copyrights to. I don't see this as a big deal.

Sites like eBay are probably not the target of this legislation, since I'd imagine they already follow this policy. It's the low-budget sites that are already in cahoots with the bootleggers who they're after.

Sites like eBay are probably not the target of this legislation, since I'd imagine they already follow this policy. It's the low-budget sites that are already in cahoots with the bootleggers who they're after.

eBay is the target. The case is L’Oréal SA, Lancôme parfums et beauté & Cie, Laboratoire Garnier & Cie, L’Oréal (UK) Limited versus eBay International AG, eBay Europe SARL and eBay (UK) Limited

eBay is the target. The case is L’Oréal SA, Lancôme parfums et beauté & Cie, Laboratoire Garnier & Cie, L’Oréal (UK) Limited versus eBay International AG, eBay Europe SARL and eBay (UK) Limited

As much as I applaud the court's efforts, the words "...could be responsible..." would seem to indicate that the court wasn't ready to declare that the site is responsible. Interesting...DJ

As much as I applaud the court's efforts, the words "...could be responsible..." would seem to indicate that the court wasn't ready to declare that the site is responsible. Interesting...DJ

This was about trademark infringmements but probably covers copyright as well.The European Court of Justice said online market providers can be liable if they play an active role in the use of trademarks. They could also be held responsible for abuse if they were aware activity on their site was unlawful. It also ruled an online market provider could be liable if it had enough information to judge an offer was unlawful and failed to prevent buyers from accessing it. Under current rules followed by eBay, the website blocks ongoing auctions if it is notified about suspicious activity. I suggest this means the "nobody complained" excuse will no longer be acceptable.

This was about trademark infringmements but probably covers copyright as well.The European Court of Justice said online market providers can be liable if they play an active role in the use of trademarks. They could also be held responsible for abuse if they were aware activity on their site was unlawful. It also ruled an online market provider could be liable if it had enough information to judge an offer was unlawful and failed to prevent buyers from accessing it. Under current rules followed by eBay, the website blocks ongoing auctions if it is notified about suspicious activity. I suggest this means the "nobody complained" excuse will no longer be acceptable.

I would certainly agree that "nobody complained" is not a valid excuse under this decision; however, as quoted, the decision is worded in a way that will make another generation of lawyers wealthy... still, as you note, it's a step in the right direction.DJ

Perhaps they could employ some sort of automatic search algorithm that would check postings as they went up to "flag" certain auctions for approval. Like, if it was for a certain type of product that was often pirated, or from a certain IP address - whatever. I'm not sure how reliable this would be, or what reasonable expectation we have that EBay "had enough information to judge an offer was unlawful". I mean really, what do we expect them to do (specifically). EBay is so big, they could never possibly verify every single posting by having a human read it. That seems unreasonable, but so does ignoring the problem. Could we extend the same principle to this site? Should AVSIM verify that all software uploaded is not in violation of anyone's trademarks/copyrights? Should AVSIM verify that any posts in this forum are not libelous, or otherwise illegal? Or is it better for AVSIM to allow us to upload and post freely, in order to enjoy the flexibility of such a system, with the understanding that when inappropriate behavior occurs, users can complain to AVSIM staff? I would suggest the latter. Certainly EBay has a responsibility to police it's auctions to a point, but there's a line somewhere (for the courts to decide, I guess). Slightly related - The guy who sits next to me at work often surfs EBay looking for a Tablet to buy. He's been doing this for 6 months, so I'm not sure it's ever going to happen. However, he often comes across the same ad that gets posted several times a day, which is obviously fraudulent. He always reports the ads, which get taken down, only to get put back up again. He finds it satisfying, somehow. He figures if enough people start doing this during their breaks, we can get rid of the scams. Seems ambitious.