Beware: a very bad precedent set
john-nanog at johnpeach.com
Tue Sep 1 12:06:50 UTC 2009
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 08:12:33 +1000
Mark Andrews <marka at isc.org> wrote:
> In message <4A9C45D2.1000605 at brightok.net>, Jack Bates writes:
> > nanog at wbsconnect.com wrote:
> > > Any and all nefarious activity alleged in this lawsuit was
> > > conducted by a c
> > ustomer, of a customer, of a customer yet the hosting provider was
> > found liab le, not the actual criminal manufacturing and selling
> > the fakes.
> > >
> > > We had all better watch our backs since it seems that claims of
> > > not being a
> > ble to inspected tens of millions of packets per second is no
> > longer a viable excuse.
> > >
> > Hmmm. I thought DMCA made it quite clear that a service provider
> > cannot ignore reports.
> > "The Akanoc Defendants___ specific business model of providing
> > unmanaged server capacity to web hosting resellers does not exempt
> > them from taking active steps to effectively prevent infringing
> > activity upon notification from an intellectual property rights
> > owner. "
> > I consider that the more important statement in the article. The
> > "upon
> notification" being the largest issue. Don't know if DMCA covers
> > anything outside the scope of copyright, but I think it's been
> > generally accepted that ignoring reports of infringement can bring
> > about liability.
> > Jack
> It will be interesting to see the court cases against ISP's that
> don't shutdown other illegal activities once they have been notified.
> [email protected] better not be a blackhole or you are putting yourself at risk
> based on this.
..and not before time.
More information about the NANOG