When I said they are covering their bases I wasn't talking about prison type liability, which typically doesn't occur in copyright violations, but civil (or financial) liabilities.
AKA, they probably want to ensure if, for example Disney, went after a seller for selling something with Mickey Mouse on it, that the seller is the one legally liable for it instead of MFF.
There can be confusion between a seller and an entity, and they probably want to legally make sure that they and the dealer are different entities and that difference is clear and distinct so that if the House of Mouse came down on the dealer that the fiscal liability would fall on the seller and come out of their pocket instead of the convention as a whole.
All they would have to do is point to that line and say, "Gawrsh, Mickey. Hey don't sue us, the dealer violated this rule we have, go after them instead."
When I said they are covering their bases I wasn't talking about prison type liability, which typically doesn't occur in copyright violations, but civil (or financial) liabilities.
AKA, they probably want to ensure if, for example Disney, went after a seller for selling something with Mickey Mouse on it, that the seller is the one legally liable for it instead of MFF.
There can be confusion between a seller and an entity, and they probably want to legally make sure that they and the dealer are different entities and that difference is clear and distinct so that if the House of Mouse came down on the dealer that the fiscal liability would fall on the seller and come out of their pocket instead of the convention as a whole.
All they would have to do is point to that line and say, "Gawrsh, Mickey. Hey don't sue us, the dealer violated this rule we have, go after them instead."