If you can't read the words in your own link and read the law then please stop posting.
Really you are arguing against your own link to the law, not me. This is pretty sad.

(c) Information Residing on Systems or Networks At Direction of Users.—
(1) In general.— A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the storage at the direction of a user of material that resides on a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider, if the service provider—
(A)
(i) does not have actual knowledge that the material or an activity using the material on the system or network is infringing;
(ii) in the absence of such actual knowledge, is not aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent; or
(iii) upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material;
(B) does not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity, in a case in which the service provider has the right and ability to control such activity; and
(C) upon notification of claimed infringement as described in paragraph (3), responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity.

The ISP is only granted immunity until they are informed of the violation. (They can't be prosecuted for violations they are not informed about) After they've been informed, as this court ruling shows, they MUST take action or they become complicit in the violation.

said by yourlink :

---

Section 512(j) describes the forms of injunctive (i.e. court order) relief available to copyright holders. Even though OSPs have immunity from monetary damages under Section 512, they may be compelled by copyright holders, in appropriate situations, to stop providing access to infringing material or to terminate the account of a particular infringer.

---

For webhosts to have safe harbor provisions intact, they need to remove the infringing material quickly. In the case of LV vs. Chen, it sounds like Chen did *not* remove the material quickly (24-48h) and therefore, should be liable.

You seem to keep confusing web hosting with
transmitting, routing, or providing connections (including temp storage during transmission)

said by your quote :

---

The defense lawyers said Chen and his companies could not be held liable for the actions of Web sites they might have hosted but did not directly own or operate.

---

A public ISP is 100% not liable for any copyrighted material. The clause you are speaking about to forward letters is not needed as they are already 100% protected from being liable as stated in your link.

Lawyers for Chen had argued that Akanoc and Managed Solutions were protected under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's (DMCA), which limits the liability of ISPs for activities by its customers that might constitute copyright infringements. The defense lawyers said Chen and his companies could not be held liable for the actions of Web sites they might have hosted but did not directly own or operate.

Louis Vuitton claimed that Chen and his hosting companies were contributing to the illegal activities by providing the infrastructure that enabled the sale of counterfeit goods. They further said that Chen and his companies had been informed of the activity by Louis Vuitton but still refused to implement a policy for removing the offending sites, which was their responsibility.

The verdict "establishes a standard" for trademark infringement complaints on the Internet, said Andy Coombs, Louis Vuitton's counsel, in a statement. "It represents a positive contribution to existing case law and marks the first time statutory damages have been awarded against those found contributorily liable for trademark infringement," Coombs said.

What you linked to definately does not apply to public ISPs as they do not host any content and they lease an IP address to the customer.

said by your link :

---

§ 512. Limitations on liability relating to material online

(a) Transitory Digital Network Communications.— A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the provider’s transmitting, routing, or providing connections for, material through a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider, or by reason of the intermediate and transient storage of that material in the course of such transmitting, routing, or providing connections

---

Customer's are not paying for ISPs to record the IP address we use, we are not paying them to use people to foward letters, we are not paying them to implement hearsay sanctions.

So basically, you have no idea what you're actually paying your ISP for. You may not want to pay for those things, but in reality you are.

Maybe they should just refuse to service you with one notice? Sounds fair to me.

Shame on them for extending multiple warnings for alleged infringing actions and in the end maybe doing nothing much at all about it? The horror..... You should be much more concerned with your acknowledgment of infringing actions after the third and fourth warning that the copyright holders will most likely use against you in legal action.

Maybe they should just refuse to service you with one notice? Sounds fair to me.

ISPs don't check to see what was downloaded only because we'd have people on here claiming its in violation of their rights and the Network owners have no right to be able to do that. So you can't have your cake and eat it to.

Maybe they should just refuse to service you with one notice? Sounds fair to me.

very true. If you get three and four notices; you are in deed knowingly doing illegal activities online.