Court orders for blocking of streaming services

Sun May 8 16:15:58 UTC 2022

Masataka,

You’re incorrect about the DMCA when you say “DMCA treats ‘linking’ to illegal contents as illegal as the contents themselves”. You must knowingly link to works that clearly infringe somebody’s copyright.  A link to the Israel.TV websites themselves is not to a specific work, so it’s not covered by DMCA. So first, as long as you don’t know that a work is infringing someone’s copyright, then you cannot be held liable for contributor infringement for directing users to that work. But, over and above that requirement, a link that doesn’t go directly to a specific work, but just a website in general (as the judgement declares “shall block access to the website”) is completely out of the bounds of DMCA.

Nevertheless, this is still a court order, and presumably carries the full force of the court despite its ridiculous nature. It has the potential to force innocent parties to spend a ton of money defending themselves against red herrings and straw men.

-mel via cell

On May 8, 2022, at 8:22 AM, Masataka Ohta <mohta at necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:

Mel Beckman wrote:

But the phrase "or linking to the domain" Includes hundreds, possibly
thousands, of unwitting certain parties:

DMCA treats "linking" to illegal contents as illegal as the
contents themselves, which is why I wrote:

: In addition, it seems to me that name server operators "having
: actual knowledge" that some domain names are used for copyright
: infringements are not be protected by DMCA.

> I think I am simply right.

So, you know nothing about DMCA. Read it.

> The lawsuit is contradictory and overreaching.

As for transit ISPs enjoying a safe harbor of DMCA, yes, as I
already said so.

                       Masataka Ohta
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20220508/dba96484/attachment.html>