Copyright infringement notice
joly at punkcast.com
Wed Aug 22 21:54:44 UTC 2012
The 6 strikes system doesn't kick in til Jan 2013 AFAIK.
Does the legal letter make any kind of demand? Usually the sender (aka
copyright troll - a technical term) will be looking for personal info to
associate with the IP in order to institute a shakedown of some nature.
IANAL but I believe one can wait for a subpoena, and even then it's not
open and closed.
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. <amitchell at isipp.com
> > On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 6:16 AM, groupstudytac groupstudytac
> > <groupstudytac at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I get copyright notices from companies like Irdeto , saying that one of
> >> customers IP is downloading unauthorized material using bittorent. I
> >> have processes in place to handle such notices .
> >> Can anyone share how he handles such notices in his ISP environment , i
> >> 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.
> The thing that muddies this is that, as I understand it, the notice was
> not for takedown (i.e. there is not an allegation that they are *hosting*
> infringing material) - it is a notice that one of their users *downloaded*
> copyrighted material (IP, do I have that right?)
> This is part of the RIAA's "graduated response" program, to which several
> major ISPs, including AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast, have agreed.
> Basically, the accuser contacts the ISP, and the ISP sends a warning (a
> "copyright alert") to their user (without giving up the user to the
> If the same user is accused subsequently, they get another, sterner
> warning. In total there is a series of six warnings, with "mitigation
> measures" accompanying the fifth and sixth warning.
> If I were counseling an ISP - whether one that was part of the agreement,
> or not - I would say that the first order is to *put your policy around
> copyright alerts in writing* - asap - and make it as specific as possible -
> and then *ALWAYS FOLLOW IT EVERY SINGLE TIME*.
> It almost (I say almost) doesn't matter what the policy is so long as it's
> reasonable, but it matters that it be followed to the letter every time, no
> And, if you are an ISP that isn't part of the agreement with the RIAA,
> it's still not a bad idea to structure your policy to follow the six
> "copyright alert" structure, because there is some precedent there, and
> then you come off looking like you are trying to do the right thing, which
> will make you a less easy target.
> These two articles give a pretty good explanation of the deal:
> Anne P. Mitchell, Esq
> Institute for Social Internet Public Policy
> Member, Cal. Bar Cyberspace Law Committee
> ISIPP Email Accreditation: http://www.SuretyMail.com
Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
More information about the NANOG