nanog mailing list archives
Re: Beware: a very bad precedent set
From: John Peach <john-nanog () johnpeach com>
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 08:06:50 -0400
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 08:12:33 +1000 Mark Andrews <marka () isc org> wrote:
In message <4A9C45D2.1000605 () brightok net>, Jack Bates writes:nanog () wbsconnect com wrote:Any and all nefarious activity alleged in this lawsuit was conducted by a customer, of a customer, of a customer yet the hosting provider was found liab le, not the actual criminal manufacturing and selling the fakes.We had all better watch our backs since it seems that claims of not being able to inspected tens of millions of packets per second is no longer a viable excuse.Hmmm. I thought DMCA made it quite clear that a service provider cannot ignore reports. "The Akanoc Defendants___ specific business model of providing unmanaged server capacity to web hosting resellers does not exempt them from taking active steps to effectively prevent infringing activity upon notification from an intellectual property rights owner. " I consider that the more important statement in the article. The "uponnotification" being the largest issue. Don't know if DMCA coversanything outside the scope of copyright, but I think it's been generally accepted that ignoring reports of infringement can bring about liability. JackIt will be interesting to see the court cases against ISP's that don't shutdown other illegal activities once they have been notified. abuse@ better not be a blackhole or you are putting yourself at risk based on this.
..and not before time. -- John
Current thread:
- Re: Beware: a very bad precedent set John Peach (Sep 01)