North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: DMCA Violation?

  • From: Daniel Senie
  • Date: Fri May 09 15:53:26 2003

At 01:31 PM 5/9/2003, [email protected] wrote:

On Fri, 09 May 2003 12:50:27 EDT, Kai Schlichting <[email protected]>  said:

> Specifically: does the DMCA make an ISP liable for copyright
> infringement (rather than merely denying the safe heaven) of its customers
> if the ISP refuses to play along with the RIAA/MPAA bullies and does not
> make the alleged content unavailable, lacking any evidence presented that
> establishes the unlawful infringement with a preponderance of evidence

IANAL, but yes, you become liable if you intentionally drag your feet and
don't make the content unavailable "expeditiously". (a)(1), (b)(1), and (c)(1)
all say "you are not liable for monetary relief if you comply".  There's some
stuff about injunctions down in (j) that usually won't get invoked because
it's more work for the complaintant - those basically boil down to "If you
don't comply with a 512 takedown order, they'll show up with a court order
telling you to do almost exactly the same thing".
The only notice I've received to date was from Lucasfilm Ltd., and I sent them a letter suggesting they hire a lawyer to read the law to them and explain it.

The Lucasfilm folks sent a blanket note to some or all folks registered as ISPs under the DMCA which said to look for files named <long list of file names> and delete those from your servers if you find them. The file names were of trailers for Star Wars Episode I. We told them to piss off and only send us notices if they had ACTUAL EVIDENCE of violation. They were attempting to get ISPs to do their work for them and hunt down violators.

We never did hear anything further from them. I have to wonder how many ISPs actually acceded to their demand.