DMCA takedowns of networks

Sat Oct 24 15:51:33 UTC 2009

On Oct 24, 2009, at 11:20 AM, Brett Frankenberger wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 11:06:29AM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>> On Oct 24, 2009, at 10:53 AM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
>>> On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 09:36:05AM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>>>> On Oct 24, 2009, at 9:28 AM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Outside of child pornography there is no content that I would ever
>>>>> consider censoring without a court order nor would I ever purchase
>>>>> transit from a company that engages in this type of behavior.
>>>>
>>>> A DMCA takedown order has the force of law.
>
> It most certainly does not.

It "most certainly" does.

>>> The DMCA defines a process by which copyright violations can be
>>> handled. One of the options in that process is to send a
>>> counter-notice to the takedown notice.
>>
>> Laws frequently have multiple options for compliance.  Doesn't mean  
>> you
>> don't have to follow the law.
>
> But you should understand the law.

That's a matter of opinion. :)

> The DMCA does NOT require that any provider, anywhere, ever, take down
> material because they were notified that the material is infringing on
> a copyright holder's rights.

Who said it does?  I "most certainly" did not.  If you think I did,  
try reading again.

> What the DMCA does say is that if a provider receives such a
> notification, and promptly takes down the material, then the ISP is
> immune from being held liable for the infringement.  Many providers
> routinely take down material when they receive a DMCA take-down  
> notice.
> But if they do so out of the belief that they are required to do so,
> they are confused.  They are not required to do so.  They can choose  
> to
> take it down in exchange for getting the benefit of immunity from  
> being
> sued (many, probably most, providers make this choice).  Or they can
> choose to leave it up, which leaves them vulnerable to a lawsuit by  
> the
> copyright holder.  (In such a lawsuit, they copyright holder would  
> have
> to prove that infringement occurred and that the provider is liable  
> for
> it.)

See, we agree.

So what was the problem again? =)

And if anyone wants to get upset at a provider for doing what is best  
for their business, perhaps by saying they are 'giving in to a bully'  
or other silliness, then they should be ignored.

Sometimes it's worth the $$ on lawyers so you can get more customers  
because people believe you will stand up for them.  Sometimes it is  
not.  But a for-profit business is, well, for-profit.  And even if you  
make the wrong business decision, it's still YOUR decision.  You risk  
your business either way you decide, and things are rarely cut-and- 
dried.  People from the outside without all the information telling  
you you what to do are being silly.

Like I always say: Your Network, Your Decision.

Anyone care to argue otherwise?

-- 
TTFN,
patrick

P.S. still doesn't mean HE should have taken down non-infringing sites.