Errata
Fifth Edition Corrections:
None Reported.Fourth Edition Corrections:
Page xxiv - The last line on the page was omitted; the sentence should read: "With that in mind, the reader is urged to visit the IssuesInInternetLaw.com Web site regularly to view updates in the law which have occurred since this book’s publication."
Page 51- The sentence "The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that this was a copyright infringement that violated the DMCA" should read: "A federal court ruled that this was a copyright infringement that violated the DMCA." (The associated footnote is correct).
Third Edition Corrections:
Page 31 - The sentence: "Change and Virgin's American subsidiary" should read "Chang and Virgin's American subsidiary"
Page 62 - Footnote 44 should read: "Perfect 10, Inc. v. Visa Int’l. Servs. Ass’n., 71 U.S.P.Q.2d 1914 (N.D. Cal. 2004)."
Page 71 - The sentence: "It it a convenient and cost effective way" should read "It is a convenient and cost effective way"
Page 86 - The sentence: "Uzi Nissan, an Israeli, came to America in 1976 and started several business" should read: "Uzi Nissan, an Israeli, came to America in 1976 and started several businesses"
Page 145: The sentence: "The safe harbor provisions of § 230 have shielded such websites from traditional libel or copyright infringement liability provided they remove offending posts when notified." should read: "The safe harbor provisions of § 230 have traditionally shielded such websites from defamation actions."
Pages 223-232: Footnote 6 in the text on page 223 should be renumbered as footnote 7 (California Business and Professions Code § 22575-22579). There is another footnote 6 on the previous page.Second Edition Corrections:
Page 85: Should read: "Uninvited Guests."
Page 141-150: Beginning with footnote 24 on page 141 and continuing throught the remainder of the chapter, the footnotes are misnumbered. There is another footnote 24 on the previous page.
First Edition Corrections:
Page 6: should read: 7th Circuit — Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin
Page 51: should read: The search engine firm Google charged Booble.com, which marketed itself as an adult search engine, with trademark infringement.
Page 158: Footnote 51 should read: Securities Act of 1933, text available at U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission website, http://www.sec.gov/divisions/corpfin/33act/index1933.shmtl (accessed September 21, 2005).
Page 201: Footnote 2 should read: Special thanks to Carol Moncrief of The Web Marketing Studio, Denise Schmeichler of Netklik, and The-Website-Factory.com for sharing their web design agreements.
