Copyright infringement notice

Robert Bonomi bonomi at
Wed Aug 22 19:07:43 UTC 2012

> From at  Wed Aug 22 10:54:49 2012
> From: William Herrin <bill at>
> Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 11:54:00 -0400
> Subject: Re: Copyright infringement notice
> To: groupstudytac groupstudytac <groupstudytac at>
> Cc: nanog at
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 6:16 AM, groupstudytac groupstudytac
> <groupstudytac at> wrote:
> > I get copyright notices from companies like Irdeto , saying that one of my
> > customers IP is downloading unauthorized material using bittorent. I also
> > have processes in place to handle such notices .
> >
> > Can anyone share how he handles such notices in his ISP environment , i am
> > ready to adapt some valid steps to improve the existing process.
> >
> > Or should i just ignore such messages ?
> If you're in the U.S., the process for handling these notices is
> prescribed by law, specifically the Digital Millennium Copyright Act
> (search: DMCA takedown notice). It details what the infringement
> notice must include in order to be actionable and what steps the ISP
> must take on receipt of an actionable notice. It also prescribes
> procedures for the alleged infringer to object and for the ISP to
> restore the material following an objection.
> Follow the procedures described in the law to retain your immunity as
> an ISP. Consult a local lawyer if you don't find them sufficiently
> obvious.

Note: the DMCA, and 'takedown notices' associated therewith apply to
contet that an ISP customer is 'publishing' by public display on the

The OP is getting notices that someone with an IP address in a netblock
'belonging' to the ISP he operates is _downloading_ content that 'someone
else' [more than one such entity, in all probability, given that it's
bittorrent, and presumably exteral to the OP's netblock(s)] is doing the
'publishing' addressed by the DMCA, and the 'safe harbor' provisions
for ISPs.

I'm NOT SURE whether the ISP has any potential liability in _this_ 
situation -- there's nothing 'published' by their customer for them to
'take down', etc.

However, the *only* reasonable/rational recommedation that can be made
to the OP is "consult competent professional legal counsel in *your*
jurisdiction."  It is virtully a requirement to do this on a "paid",
"commercial", "lawyer-client" basis, and to get the 'opinion' _in_writing_,
so that *if* the advice received (and which was followed) turns out
'after the fact' to be incorrect, one has recourse aginst the lawyer's
malpractice insurance (to make one whole, as far as the 'detrimental
reliance' on the opinion that was proven to be incorrect).

*I* would be tempted to respond, *once*, to the issuer of such notices,
to the effect that customemr info is disclosed only upon receipt of a
valid court subpoena, and the 'records production' costs are $$/hr, with
an $xx minimum. And, if they persited in the FUD notices, I would explicitly
*block* the source (not 'discard', but actively block -- so that they have
'actual notice' of non-delivery).

I *WOULD*, however, take my own advice, and pay a competent lawyer for
a consultation, BEFORE actually doing anything of the sort.  <grin>

More information about the NANOG mailing list