kai at pac-rim.net
Fri May 9 16:50:27 UTC 2003
On 5/8/2003 at 10:00 PM, Roy <garlic at garlic.com> wrote:
> Also, if you simply blow off the notice, you can become liable since you
> didn't follow the intent of the DMCA to remove copyrighted material.
The DMCA creates a specific safe harbor for ISPs, and compliance with the
relevant statute makes the ISP eligible for the safe harbor so described
HOWEVER, I seem to recall a long series of civil cases preceding the DMCA
that established almost universally that the ISP was not liable as a
mere "conduit" for copyright infringing content made available by its
customers and through its facilities.
Does the DMCA supercede and invalidate this case law, as it had
been established prior to the passing of the DMCA?
Specifically: does the DMCA make an ISP liable for copyright
infringement (rather than merely denying the safe heaven) of its customers
if the ISP refuses to play along with the RIAA/MPAA bullies and does not
make the alleged content unavailable, lacking any evidence presented that
establishes the unlawful infringement with a preponderance of evidence
(and a DMCA take down notice is FAR from even being close to preponderance
of evidence, let alone beyond reasonable doubt ; for criminal cases)?
More information about the NANOG