Judge Recognizes The Obvious: Printer Shouldn't Be Liable For A Book It Prints

from the putting-liability-where-it-belongs dept

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.

Filed Under: liability, print on demand

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2008 @ 11:50pm

    Re: Re: Willful Blindness

    In order to argue for willful blindness, it would have to be shown that there was a high probability of illegal conduct, that BookSurge was aware of that probability, and that BookSurge intentionally avoided discovery because of it.
    Do you have any basis for that claim? I ask because there seem to be many court cases that don't agree with you. For, instance is there a "high probability" that any package somebody asks you to transport contains illegal drugs? I don't think so, yet courts have ruled that not knowing what was in such packages constitutes willful blindness and makes the carriers just as guilty as if they had known. Are most corporate accountants engaged in criminal account practices? Again, I don't think so yet a court found willful blindness on the part of Enron's top executives for not being aware of it.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: I Invented Email
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.