Judge Recognizes The Obvious: Printer Shouldn't Be Liable For A Book It Prints
Date : 07 24 2008 Category : Business
Techdirt
Just last week we wrote about the Republican National Committee suing CafePress for
selling t-shirt designs from users that include RNC trademarks (the "GOP" phrase and the
RNC's elephant). Even though the RNC has backed down, CafePress may be happy to hear that a ruling in a different case seems
to support the idea that CafePress shouldn't be liable. Eric Goldman points us to quite a
series of lawsuits up in Maine between two
families. Apparently, the daughters of the families were once friends in high school
but had something of... er... a falling out. Take your average "former best friends"
dispute and multiply it by about 100. This one involved both girls getting expelled and
one eventually being convicted of a hate crime against the other.
The family of the convicted girl believe they've been wronged, and began a publicity campaign in their own favor. Part of this campaign involved a self-published book telling their side of the story. They tried to find a publisher for it, but publishers (wisely, from the sound of it) wanted no part of it. So, instead, they used a print-on-demand publisher. The other family, of course, sued everyone involved for defamation, including the print-on-demand company, BookSurge.
Without even using section 230 of the CDA, BookSurge has been let off the hook in the case, as the judge noted that it made no sense to include them in the case: Because BookSurge does not undertake to edit, review or fact-check any of its publications, it has no means or way of knowing whether defamatory material is contained within the works that it publishes. BookSurge maintained no editorial control over the works published. The responsibilities of BookSurge, which are known to the authors of the works, indicate that it is not an active participant in the creation of any defamation. This fits with what we've always said about section 230 of the CDA. Even if it didn't exist, it makes legal sense simply not to allow lawsuits against a mere middleman for the actions of an end user. It's nice to see the court recognize that here.
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
The family of the convicted girl believe they've been wronged, and began a publicity campaign in their own favor. Part of this campaign involved a self-published book telling their side of the story. They tried to find a publisher for it, but publishers (wisely, from the sound of it) wanted no part of it. So, instead, they used a print-on-demand publisher. The other family, of course, sued everyone involved for defamation, including the print-on-demand company, BookSurge.
Without even using section 230 of the CDA, BookSurge has been let off the hook in the case, as the judge noted that it made no sense to include them in the case: Because BookSurge does not undertake to edit, review or fact-check any of its publications, it has no means or way of knowing whether defamatory material is contained within the works that it publishes. BookSurge maintained no editorial control over the works published. The responsibilities of BookSurge, which are known to the authors of the works, indicate that it is not an active participant in the creation of any defamation. This fits with what we've always said about section 230 of the CDA. Even if it didn't exist, it makes legal sense simply not to allow lawsuits against a mere middleman for the actions of an end user. It's nice to see the court recognize that here.
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story