Joseph Snyder joseph.snyder at
Sun Jan 22 20:53:06 UTC 2012

I would disagree, to me I would guess that the court would interpret the disabling of access or removal to refer to the material and not the url. The url is just a reference to the material in question. If you build a bashing system that does not let you comply with the law, that becomes your problem, not the courts. If you show good faith explain the issue and propose a reasonable timeline to resolve the issue or show financial hardship and appeal to the court for more time, then you can avoid, a lot of headaches.

Nick B <nick at> wrote:

I just made the brain melting mistake of trying to read the DMCA. The text
which jumps out at me is:

`(2) EXCEPTION- Paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect to material
residing at the direction of a subscriber of the service provider on a
system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider
that is removed, or to which access is disabled by the service provider,
pursuant to a notice provided under subsection (c)(1)(C), unless the
service provider--

`(A) takes reasonable steps promptly to notify the subscriber that it
has removed or disabled access to the material;

`(B) upon receipt of a counter notification described in paragraph (3),
promptly provides the person who provided the notification
under subsection
(c)(1)(C) with a copy of the counter notification, and
informs that person
that it will replace the removed material or cease disabling
access to it
in 10 business days; and

`(C) replaces the removed material and ceases disabling access to it not
less than 10, nor more than 14, business days following receipt of the
counter notice, unless its designated agent first receives
notice from the
person who submitted the notification under subsection
(c)(1)(C) that such
person has filed an action seeking a court order to restrain
the subscriber
from engaging in infringing activity relating to the material on the
service provider's system or network.

I'm about 90% sure that in a fair court, it would be concluded that
disabling the reported URL qualifies as disabling access to the material.
The court might then issue an injunction to, in the future, disable *all*
*possible* access to the material, but that's not the current text of the
law. YMMV
Nick B

On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Roland Perry <
lists at> wrote:

> In article <596B74B410EE6B4CA8A30C3AF1A15**5EA09C8CDBA at RWC-MBX1.corp.**
><596B74B410EE6B4CA8A30C3AF1A155EA09C8CDBA at>>,
> George Bonser <gbonser at> writes
> The problem is going to be the thousands of people who have now lost
>> their legitimate files, research data, personal recordings, etc. that
>> they were using Megaupload to share.
> But that's an operational risk of using any commercial entity as a
> filestore. Thousands of people lost[1] a lot of work when fotopic.netcollapsed:
> [1] As it's getting on for a year since an apparent rescue attempt, and
> nothing has emerged, this seems a reasonable assumption.
> --
> Roland Perry

More information about the NANOG mailing list