dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
21
share rss forum feed
« RIAAextortion »
This is a sub-selection from Shame on the ISP's


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

Re: Shame on the ISP's

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
Reviews:
·Vitelity VOIP

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.



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

1 edit

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.