Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Intellectual Property Law Blogs -> IP Law Daily

Intellectual Property Law

: IP Law Daily

What do file-sharers have in common with discriminatory renters?43(B)log

Answer: Not a secondary liability regime.

Eric Goldman blogged about the decision in Chicago Lawyers? Committee for Civil Rights Under Law v. Craigslist, Inc., No. 07-1101 (7th Cir. March 14, 2008). He says, ?I don?t think there?s much value to parsing [Judge Easterbrook?s] confusing statutory analysis? to figure out how the case comports with past Seventh Circuit precedent, and I won?t fight him on that, but there?s a sentence in the opinion that cries out for correction: ?Grokster is incompatible with treating §230(c)(1) as a grant of comprehensive immunity from civil liability for content provided by a third party.?

What? Grokster is, as I recall, a copyright case. Section 230 explicitly excludes intellectual property law from its ambit. Grokster is neither compatible nor incompatible with any interpretation of §230; it is simply irrelevant. The fact that Judge Easterbrook doesn?t understand this suggests that his interest in efficient liability standards has distracted him from reading the relevant statutory text.

Full post as published by IP Law Daily on March 14, 2008 (boomark / email).