DMCA Violation?

Fri May 9 17:31:34 UTC 2003

On Fri, 09 May 2003 12:50:27 EDT, Kai Schlichting <kai at pac-rim.net>  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".

See 17 USC 512 (g), where the problem user gets to file a counter-notification
saying it's *not* infringing.

Remember - it's between the "copyright nazis" and your *USERS*.  If you follow
the rules, you can pretty much stay out of the worst of the mess.  Feel free
to get dragged in if you want to make a point/statement about how you feel
about 17 USC 512 - but bring a lawyer or 4 if you do. ;)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 226 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20030509/6577d76c/attachment.sig>