Secondary liability in various areas of law, sometimes also called "indirect liability
," (1) entails holding a party liable for the wrongdoing of another, "primary" actor--the person who actually performed the offending act.
The example held that the described indirect liability
assumption did not disqualify the otherwise qualified C reorganization.
(2) The author suggests that rather than continuing to apply the inducement rule where there are questions of indirect liability
in copyright infringement, courts should instead take into account the harm done to copyright owners by the designers of file-sharing software.
In modern terms, indirect liability
is divided into two
A suitable target for indirect liability
is one who can detect and deter another's bad acts and who would be encouraged by a liability rule to "internalize some significant negative externality unavoidably associated with its activities." ISPs are a natural choice, says Lichtman, because of their ability to screen users' communications.
However, last year, attorneys brought two broad class action lawsuits under the ATCA which allege injury based on vicarious or indirect liability
. The plaintiffs allege that some of the world's most visible multinationals indirectly caused injury when products or services they sold to the South African government were used to undermine human rights during the apartheid era.
(92) Specifically, the courts established different criteria for direct and indirect liability
, including vicarious and contributory forms.
The second section looks at legal issues for e-business in general, including personal jurisdiction, security, e-signatures, copyrights, trademarks, trade dress, e-mail, indirect liability
, business method, software patents, and domain name disputes.
The second section covers the legal issues associated with conducting e-business for any industry, including personal jurisdiction, security, e-signatures, copyright, trademark, trade dress, electronic mail, indirect liability
and domain name disputes.
Lucent's evidentiary approach presents something of a counterpoint to the traditional tort law view of indirect liability
, though the Lucent court, too, left some important assumptions unstated and did not make clear why it refused to rely on tort law's imputation principle.
But, as I will argue here, immunity in this instance is hard to defend on policy grounds and it is sharply inconsistent with the conventional logic of indirect liability