> On Oct 24, 2009, at 2:28 PM, Joe Greco wrote: > >> Laws frequently have multiple options for compliance. Doesn't mean > >> you don't have to follow the law. > > > > A DMCA takedown notice isn't "law," Patrick, and does not have the > > "force > > of law" claimed above. > > You say potato, I say whatever. "In the field of law, the word force > has two main meanings: unlawful violence and lawful compulsion." They > are lawfully compelling you to take down the content, or explain why > you should not.
I think you need to read the DMCA. You may feel free to point out where it says "service provider must do X." Because I suspect you will find out that it _really_ says, "in order to retain safe harbor protection, service provider must do X." The latter is not lawfully compelling me to do anything. > This is no different from many "legal" notices. If > you ignore the notice, you risk legal ramifications, including the > loss of Safe Harbor defense. > > This pice of paper has the "force" of the US gov't behind it. What > would you call "the force of law?" > > Feel free to believe otherwise. IANAL (or even an ISP :), so maybe > I'm wrong. But I'm not going to think poorly of any provider who > thinks otherwise. I "believe" what the lawyers tell me. They tell me that we may lose safe harbor if we do not comply with a takedown notice. That's about all. > >>> This seems like a very obvious case of parody/fair use, > >> > >> Possibly, but I do not blame a provider to not being willing to make > >> that distinction. > > > > Yes, but it's troubling that a nontrivial provider of transit would > > make > > such a mistake. This is like Cogent, who, at one point, received a > > DMCA > > (or possibly just abuse complaint) about content being posted > > through a > > server of a client's, and who proceeded to try to null-route that > > Usenet > > news server's address. > > [snip - bunch of stuff about Cogent] > > It is almost certainly not "like" anything. > > I'm guessing that you have no clue what actually happened. People are > making assumptions from third-party accounts using 5th hand info. > Generalization is bad, generalization on such flimsy info is silly. > > Maybe they typo'ed a filter list. Maybe some newbie over-reacted. > Maybe the customer did not pay their bill. WE HAVE NO IDEA WHY THIS > HAPPENED. Of course not. But there are at least some of us who have been through all of this; we can fill in the blanks and make some reasonable conclusions. > > To be clear: I agree that a provider might not want to make a > > distinction between a legitimate DMCA takedown and something that's > > not, but it is reasonable to limit oneself to the things required by > > the DMCA. Null-routing a virtual web server's IP and interfering > > with the operation of other services is probably overreaching, at > > least as a first step. > > I have stated over & over that it is not right for HE to take down non- > infringing sites - _if_ that is what happened. > > So why are we having this discussion? Because it appears that HE took down non-infringing sites? Excuse me for stating the obvious. :-) ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
