Can Domain Name Owner be held liable for Website Content?

[jimnyc]

After all...a domain name, just like a link, only points you in the right direction, nothing more, nothing less.

Big difference. One is pointing and the other is forcing. You have a choice whether or not to click on a text/banner link and look at the code if necessary first to see where you are being re-directed to. You are FORCING users that go to a domain to be automatically redirected to a site of YOUR choosing.

 

[directforsale]

So if I used tinyurl.com to create a link to an illegal mp3 site, and placed that tinyurl.com link on my site, then, according to your rational, I could also be held liable. I doubt that would hold up. Plus, for websites with dedicated IP addresses, a domain name really is just another "link" to the site and isn't even required to access the page.

I'm just playing devil's advocate because no one seems to be able to point to any case studies that resolve this question. It makes for a fascinating discussion, though.

 

[davezan]

So if I used tinyurl.com to create a link to an illegal mp3 site, and placed that tinyurl.com link on my site, then, according to your rational, I could also be held liable. I doubt that would hold up. Plus, for websites with dedicated IP addresses, a domain name really is just another "link" to the site and isn't even required to access the page.

There's a difference between forcing users to go to another site after typing
your domain name on their browsers and choosing whether to click or not on a
link on your domain name's website. If you still can't see it, you'd better not
put up anything yet until you finally get the drift.

Since you're asking for actual related cases, look up John Zuccarini.

Oh, and did you just this same question at namepros? I'll invite a seasoned
attorney to join the fray too.

 

[directforsale]

Yes I did because I wasn't getting a complete and thorough answer here.

Thanks for your help, though, I'll research John Zuccarini's case.

And no, I still don't really get it, because a person is still "choosing" to visit a domain name, just like they're "choosing" to click on a link.

But hopefully the Zucarrini case will provide some answers...

Thanks!

 

[jimnyc]

And no, I still don't really get it, because a person is still "choosing" to visit a domain name, just like they're "choosing" to click on a link.

I'll explain this in easier terms so that you'll understand.

1- I do a search on Google for 'widgets' and I see a site called widgetsxxx.com and I click and go to that site. I see another link on that site to nudewidgets.com and now I have a choice as to whether or not I want to click on that link. I can look at the code of the link as well to make sure it's not a bogus re-direct.

2- I do a search on Google for 'widgets' and I see a site called widgetsxxx.com and I click and go to that site. But, instead of seeing widgets, within seconds I am auto-redirected to a site full of child porn! Yikes! too late, had no way whatsoever of avoiding this.

If you don't see the difference than you never will. If that's the case, take your chances but just don't say nobody warned you.

 

[trent2275]

If I was you

This is what I would do, lease the domain to whomever. Make a contract with them stating that you can at anytime take the domain off of forwarding if illegal or unethical activities are performed.

Rent it on a week to week or month to month basis, and monitor the website regularly for problems. If one pops up, give them a warning or just cancel the forwarding.

This is what hosting companies do, mine especially. Their contract states I am liable not them.

That help?