Hacker News Reader

Does Section 230 apply at all when we're talking about a physically distributed product like this? I get that, even if it doesn't apply, Amazon's defense is probably that they're an intermediary and not the seller, but I thought the DMCA applied pretty strictly to digital copyright violations, and that any lawsuit in this instance would hinge on older laws for physical-good copyright violations.

View on HN

Well, for one, there is some exception to Section 230 in the realm of intellectual property, which is an angle that could be pursued, but there's been some "conflicting rulings" on it. But I think Amazon would argue that their publishing service is an interactive computer service, and that they are not the providers of the infringing information.

Which is to say, it's possible Section 230 would not apply here, but Amazon's extremely expensive lawyers would probably fight like heck to include it anyways.

But isn’t this case an example of Amazon physically printing and delivering a book? They aren’t just moving bits: they actually printed the book.

This is correct. 230 liability would not protect this case.

In general, physical publishers are always liable for what they print.

It doesn't matter where it came from.

(at least in this context. Things like libel are more interesting)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com