nanog mailing list archives
Re: DMCA takedowns of networks
From: Brett Frankenberger <rbf+nanog () panix com>
Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2009 10:20:51 -0500
On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 11:06:29AM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Oct 24, 2009, at 10:53 AM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 09:36:05AM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:On Oct 24, 2009, at 9:28 AM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:Outside of child pornography there is no content that I would ever consider censoring without a court order nor would I ever purchase transit from a company that engages in this type of behavior.A DMCA takedown order has the force of law.
It most certainly does not.
The DMCA defines a process by which copyright violations can be handled. One of the options in that process is to send a counter-notice to the takedown notice.Laws frequently have multiple options for compliance. Doesn't mean you don't have to follow the law.
But you should understand the law. The DMCA does NOT require that any provider, anywhere, ever, take down material because they were notified that the material is infringing on a copyright holder's rights. What the DMCA does say is that if a provider receives such a notification, and promptly takes down the material, then the ISP is immune from being held liable for the infringement. Many providers routinely take down material when they receive a DMCA take-down notice. But if they do so out of the belief that they are required to do so, they are confused. They are not required to do so. They can choose to take it down in exchange for getting the benefit of immunity from being sued (many, probably most, providers make this choice). Or they can choose to leave it up, which leaves them vulnerable to a lawsuit by the copyright holder. (In such a lawsuit, they copyright holder would have to prove that infringement occurred and that the provider is liable for it.) (I'm not commenting on the merits of HE's actions here. Just on that the DMCA actually says. It's certainly a good practice for providers that don't want to spend time evaluating copyright claims and defending copyright infringement suits (which, I think, is most providers) to take advantage of the DMCAs safe-harbor provisions. I'm not disputing that.) -- Brett
Current thread:
- Re: DMCA takedowns of networks, (continued)
- Re: DMCA takedowns of networks Patrick W. Gilmore (Oct 24)
- Re: DMCA takedowns of networks Patrick W. Gilmore (Oct 24)
- Re: DMCA takedowns of networks Jeffrey Lyon (Oct 24)
- Re: DMCA takedowns of networks Patrick W. Gilmore (Oct 24)
- Re: DMCA takedowns of networks Patrick W. Gilmore (Oct 24)
- RE: DMCA takedowns of networks Brandt, Ralph (Oct 24)
- RE: DMCA takedowns of networks Jon Lewis (Oct 24)
- RE: DMCA takedowns of networks Sven Olaf Kamphuis (Oct 26)
- Re: DMCA takedowns of networks Joly MacFie (Oct 26)
- Re: DMCA takedowns of networks Richard A Steenbergen (Oct 24)
- Re: DMCA takedowns of networks Patrick W. Gilmore (Oct 24)
- Re: DMCA takedowns of networks Brett Frankenberger (Oct 24)
- Re: DMCA takedowns of networks Patrick W. Gilmore (Oct 24)
- Re: DMCA takedowns of networks Joe Greco (Oct 24)
- Re: DMCA takedowns of networks Patrick W. Gilmore (Oct 24)
- Re: DMCA takedowns of networks Joe Greco (Oct 24)
- Re: DMCA takedowns of networks Joly MacFie (Oct 24)
- RE: DMCA takedowns of networks Brian Johnson (Oct 26)
- Re: DMCA takedowns of networks Joe Greco (Oct 26)
- RE: DMCA takedowns of networks John van Oppen (Oct 26)
- Re: DMCA takedowns of networks Jack Bates (Oct 26)
- RE: DMCA takedowns of networks Brian Johnson (Oct 26)