dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
16
share rss forum feed
« RIAAextortion »
This is a sub-selection from Shame on the ISP's


r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
Reviews:
·row44

1 recommendation

reply to espaeth

Re: Shame on the ISP's

said by espaeth:

said by r81984:

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.

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Mi···ight_Act

ISPs lose their protection from prosecution for dissemination of copyright material if they don't actively participate in passing on notices from the copyright holders.

An ISP don't need any protection. That line is an excuse that has no backing.
An ISP that provides internet service to the public and is not a private network. A business would be responsible for what goes on their private network. A public ISP like comcast, ATT, verizon, etc are not responsible for anything that customers do on the internet no more than ATT is responsible if someone commits a crime over the telephone or a cell phone.
If there was any way an ISP could be sued then all phone providers would also be sued anytime something illegal happened over a phone call. Really, that is a fake excuse and they wrote that into the law knowing that.

The major grey area that may get protection from that line would be schools like a major university with dorms. They are not really a public ISP, but can be considered a private network. Public ISPs do not need to worry.
--
...brought to you by Carl's Jr.


espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
Read the bill.

There is a reason they pushed through the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act that sets up provisions for Online Service Providers to have provisional safe harbor status if they adhere to certain criteria in dealing with DMCA violations.

They're not mailing out letters just because they wanted to spend money sucking up to copyright holders -- they're spending the money because they want safe harbor status to be exempt from prosecution for the actions of their subscribers.

The cost of setting up a department to deal with mailing notices and getting a "get out of jail free" card is far lower than the costs would be of taking a case to court for non-compliance.


r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
Reviews:
·row44
Your linked information seems more to apply to sites or data hosted by an ISP.
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.

If they tried to argue that the offending IP address goes through their network than any backbone or network the data traverses would also be responsible, which makes no sense. Then as I said before anyone that has any illegal activity over their network like phone companies would also be liable.

Your own link states "the federal Communications Decency Act (CDA) still protects the ISP from liability for content provided by third parties"

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
Section (j) relates to if they have a court order for the ISP.

Sorry, but your own link states what I have said. Public ISPs are not liable in any way for customers traffic on their network. They do not need to forward any letters as they have no liablity.
--
...brought to you by Carl's Jr.


espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
said by r81984:

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.

This becomes murky if the content is being served from an ISP where the ISP isn't a purely transit network (like a backbone IP provider). There have been cases filed against hosting providers in the past, including dedicated server providers who simply lease out a server and a block of IP space for an end-user. They have little control over how people use the server, but legal action has still been pursued for a couple providers who were defiant in handling DMCA complaints.

said by r81984:

Your own link states "the federal Communications Decency Act (CDA) still protects the ISP from liability for content provided by third parties"

Yes, that was an argument that came up in one of the court cases I just mentioned.

Again, this comes down to a really simply cost analysis:

$$ - setup a department to mail out notifications that gets you complete immunity from prosecution under the safe harbor provisions.

$$$$$ - the cost to proceed with even a single legal case to defend their position in a DMCA violation that prosecutors choose to pursue. (that the ISP would likely win anyway, due to the provisions you outlined above)

It's setup that you would have to be completely stupid to not position your company to have safe harbor protection. It would be akin to operating a business without liability insurance.


r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
Reviews:
·row44
You ignored your own link.
I will cut out the good part.

said by yourlink :
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


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.
--
...brought to you by Carl's Jr.


espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
said by r81984:

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.

I'm not ignoring the link, and despite what you think that says, the courts have already ruled differently in a web hosting case.

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.
Source: »www.computerworld.com/s/article/···myId=144

This is no different than the subscriber of an ISP distributing copyrighted material, a DMCA notice is supplied to the ISP (who owns the IP), and the ISP takes no action. Given that there are now cases to establish precedence, there is no way in hell an ISP is going to simply ignore DMCA complaints.


r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
Reviews:
·row44
Again you ignore what the law that you link to says.

What you stated about Akanoc and Managed solutions does not apply to an ISP. WHat you stated applys to web hosting and the arguement was for dummy web hosting vs web hosting and controlling the content.
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.
You seem to keep confusing web hosting with
transmitting, routing, or providing connections (including temp storage during transmission)

An ISP is 100% protected from lawsuits from any customer that transmits or receives copyrighted material. Forwarding letters is not required and has nothing to do with that protection. Forwarding letters is required if the ISP is "hosting" content in terms of a web server.

The law does not require an ISP to forward letters for protection and the customers are not paying for that activity.
--
...brought to you by Carl's Jr.


Gbcue
Premium
join:2001-09-30
Santa Rosa, CA
kudos:8
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
reply to espaeth
said by espaeth:

said by r81984:

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.

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.

This is no different than the subscriber of an ISP distributing copyrighted material, a DMCA notice is supplied to the ISP (who owns the IP), and the ISP takes no action. Given that there are now cases to establish precedence, there is no way in hell an ISP is going to simply ignore DMCA complaints.

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.

Most ISPs forward you the copyright notice. Since they don't own any of the infringing content, it is up to the END USER to comply with any notice.
--
My Blog 2.2


espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
reply to r81984
said by r81984:

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

The distinction isn't important in this context. Their role also wasn't web hosting, they were providing colocation services for the websites in question. They did nothing but provide space, power, and connectivity for the servers hosting those websites.

said by r81984:

An ISP is 100% protected from lawsuits from any customer that transmits or receives copyrighted material. Forwarding letters is not required and has nothing to do with that protection. Forwarding letters is required if the ISP is "hosting" content in terms of a web server.

An ISP is only provided immunity if they have not been informed of a violation. Basically you can't be implicated for material in violation going over your wires if you haven't been been given the opportunity to rectify the situation.

said by r81984:

The law does not require an ISP to forward letters for protection and the customers are not paying for that 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.


espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
reply to Gbcue
said by Gbcue:

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.

The Managed Solutions Group division in question was AKANoc which provided pure colocation services out of Market Post Tower in San Jose. They had no control over the servers as they didn't own any of the server hardware. Their role was very similar to an ISP in that they only provided network connectivity to their clients along with space and power for the servers. They still lost the lawsuit because they had no records of any attempts to notify their customers of the complaints they'd received.

said by Gbcue:

Most ISPs forward you the copyright notice. Since they don't own any of the infringing content, it is up to the END USER to comply with any notice.

The act of identifying and recording the end user information along with submitting notice of the copyright violation is what provides the ISP with safe harbor protection under OCILLA.


r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
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.
--
...brought to you by Carl's Jr.


r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
Reviews:
·row44
reply to espaeth
said by espaeth:

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.

Not according to your link which say the ISP is protected unless they do not comply with the court order.

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.


Your link clearly states that ISP are protected from customers transmitting and receiving copyright data. An ISP is under no obligation to forward any letters for any protection. They are already 100% protected.
--
...brought to you by Carl's Jr.


espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2

1 edit
reply to r81984
said by r81984:

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.

What's sad is that you took the time to read that link, and didn't read section (c) of the same law and see why Managed Solutions Group & Akanoc lost the case. They owned none of the servers in question, had no control over what content was on the servers -- they simply provided space, power and network.

(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.
There is a word that describes the folks who made the same argument you did that simply being a transit provider gives them blanket immunity: guilty. It's a misunderstanding of what a transit provider is in the context of the law, which proved costly in the Managed / AKANoc case.

The transit network provider clause in section (a) only applies to true transit networks like Level(3), GlobalCrossing, etc. Network providers that serve other networks, where the carrier has no way of knowing the end user of an IP because they don't own the network responsible for being the source of the infringing material.


r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
Reviews:
·row44

1 recommendation

This is really sad.
You keep confusing web hosting with
transmitting, routing, or providing connections (including temp storage during transmission)

(a) Transitory Digital Network Communications.
Section A covers and ISP from all liability - for "transmitting, routing, or providing connections "

(c) Information Residing on Systems or Networks At Direction of Users
Section C covers "for infringement of copyright by reason of the storage"
Section C clearly states "Residing", not "transmitting, routing, or providing connections".

If a users places content on an ISPs network somewhere like in remote email, web hosting, backup space, file servers the ISP needs to forward a takedown letter for protection as stated in section C.
If an ISP just provides a connection from the customer's network to the internet and transmits and receives the customers content they are 100% protected as stated in section A.

The words are pretty clear and distinct, I do not understand what is so damn confusing about this.
--
...brought to you by Carl's Jr.