DMCA Violation?

Daniel Senie dts at
Fri May 9 19:51:27 UTC 2003

At 01:31 PM 5/9/2003, Valdis.Kletnieks at wrote:

>On Fri, 09 May 2003 12:50:27 EDT, Kai Schlichting <kai at>  said:
> > 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
>IANAL, but yes, you become liable if you intentionally drag your feet and
>don't make the content unavailable "expeditiously". (a)(1), (b)(1), and (c)(1)
>all say "you are not liable for monetary relief if you comply".  There's some
>stuff about injunctions down in (j) that usually won't get invoked because
>it's more work for the complaintant - those basically boil down to "If you
>don't comply with a 512 takedown order, they'll show up with a court order
>telling you to do almost exactly the same thing".

The only notice I've received to date was from Lucasfilm Ltd., and I sent 
them a letter suggesting they hire a lawyer to read the law to them and 
explain it.

The Lucasfilm folks sent a blanket note to some or all folks registered as 
ISPs under the DMCA which said to look for files named <long list of file 
names> and delete those from your servers if you find them. The file names 
were of trailers for Star Wars Episode I. We told them to piss off and only 
send us notices if they had ACTUAL EVIDENCE of violation. They were 
attempting to get ISPs to do their work for them and hunt down violators.

We never did hear anything further from them. I have to wonder how many 
ISPs actually acceded to their demand. 

More information about the NANOG mailing list