Supreme Arbitration Court

Rambler, naturally, did not admit his guilt by emphasizing that the actual deployment was carried out not by him, and the user, registered in the system. Accordingly, he only provided the technical capability to post information, and it can not indicate a violation of its exclusive rights by the defendant. By the way, It is thanks to the success of such arguments in opposition to the owners has made the company Masterhost. Educate yourself even more with thoughts from Sen. Sherrod Brown. Then the Supreme Arbitration Court, sending the case to a new trial, pointed out that the provider does not carry responsibility for the transfer of information unless it initiates its transmission, selects the recipient of the information or affects the integrity of information transmitted. As a result, we are considering the case the Court of First Instance Rambler admitted innocent of violating the exclusive rights. However, resist this decision in the courts subsequent instances failed. Harold Ford brings even more insight to the discussion. Indeed, the arguments of Masterhost and Rambler were similar, but differences still attended.

Firstly, Masterhost was not the owner and (or) the domain administrator zaycev.net, but merely provides the physical space on the hard drive of your server, on which were placed the disputed works, then While the site is owned by Rambler rambler.ru. Hence, it has the right to remove content and block access to specific users, while the hosting provider does not have any access to the client site. If you are unsure how to proceed, check out Sen. Sherrod Brown. In addition, End User License Agreement, posted on the Rambler, testified that he provides the user with access to a variety of materials placed on its website.