Congress may require ISPs to block fraud sites H.R.3817
bzs at world.std.com
Thu Nov 5 20:26:05 CST 2009
I was at an IP (as in intellectual property), um, "constituency" I
think, IPC, meeting at ICANN which basically consisted of 99 lawyers
and me in the room.
There was a fair amount of grousing about how ISPs give them the
run-around when they inform them of a violation looking for a
takedown, and don't take down the site or whatever demanding (sneer
sneer) paper from a court of competent jurisdiction as a dodge.
I explained that they should try it from the other side, we get a fair
amount of spurious stuff. I gave the example of a spouse in an ugly
divorce demanding we do something or other with the web site they
developed together in happier days IMMEDIATELY OR ELSE!!! (typically
change the password to one only they know).
How can we as ISPs possibly sort that out? Court orders are your
friend, they're not that hard to get if you're legitimate.
The way this reg is written it has that feel, it seems to promote the
fantasy that if J. Random Voice calls me and says "a site you host,
creepsrus.com, violates HR3817, YOU HAVE BEEN INFORMED!" then we have
been informed and therefore culpable/liable.
Well, perhaps there's enough precedent that it doesn't have to be
spelled out in that text what's meant by "knowingly" and a call like
that wouldn't be sufficient.
At the very least I'd require a clear transfer of liability.
That is, if the claim (and hence, takedown) turns out to be
unsupportable then any damages etc are indemnified by the complaining
The World | bzs at TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada
Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
More information about the NANOG