Court orders for blocking of streaming services

Mon May 9 04:32:47 UTC 2022

I'm not very clear on the laws around much of this discussion, but I've been following this with interest.

I have a tongue-in-cheek question... if the documentation provided by the plaintiff to the court, and/or the court documentation including the final ruling, includes the specific URLs to the websites to block, does that constitute transmitting links to illegal content? They could not argue they didn't know the legal issues surrounding said links.

-----Original Message-----
From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+philip.loenneker=tasmanet.com.au at nanog.org> On Behalf Of Masataka Ohta
Sent: Monday, 9 May 2022 11:55 AM
To: nanog at nanog.org
Subject: Re: Court orders for blocking of streaming services

Mel Beckman wrote:

You are confusing "illegal" and "guilty".

The first party publicly transmitting illegal contents or links to the contents are guilty, which means the links themselves are illegal.

But, DMCA makes some third party providers providing illegal contents or illegal links guilty only if some condition of DMCA is met.

Same for civil liability.

> You're incorrect about the DMCA when you say "DMCA treats 'linking' 
> to illegal contents as illegal as the contents themselves". 

See above.

> You > must knowingly link to works that clearly infringe somebody's 
> copyright.

Same is true if you are transmitting not links but the contents themselves.

 > 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,

You totally miss the point of the order, though I wrote:

: As the order is to those "having actual knowledge of this Default
: Judgment and Permanent Injunction Order",

					Masataka Ohta