(B) any action taken … to make available … the technical means to restrict access to material.”
material that the provider or user considers to be … objectionable or (A) any action … taken … in good faith to restrict access to. “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of: The safe harbor provision was enacted to promote the ability of computer users to shield themselves (and their children) from objectionable content. Kaspersky argued that it was immune from Zango’s lawsuit under the safe harbor provision of the Communications Decency Act of 1996.
#Kaspersky embedded alliance partners software#
Zango, Inc., an operator of websites providing downloadable videos and other programs, sued Kaspersky, alleging that the Kaspersky software improperly classified Zango’s downloads as “adware” and thus improperly blocked potential users from downloading Zango’s programs. An amicus brief in support of Kaspersky was signed by, among others, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Business Software Alliance, entities that do not often pull in the same direction.
Sunstein Kann Murphy & Timbers LLP represented Kaspersky Lab, the victor in this case. Kaspersky Lab, the court interpreted a statutory immunity generally understood to protect internet service providers (ISPs) to cover also sellers of software that protects users against spyware and adware. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has handed an important victory to the Internet security industry.
0 kommentar(er)
