> From nanog-bounces+bonomi=mail.r-bonomi....@nanog.org Sat Sep 25 17:00:42 > 2010 > Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2010 00:01:38 +0200 > From: Jeroen Massar <jer...@unfix.org> > To: valdis.kletni...@vt.edu > Subject: Re: Online games stealing your bandwidth > Cc: NANOG <na...@merit.edu> > > On 2010-09-25 23:53, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: > > On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 21:43:25 BST, Matthew Walster said: > > > >> Was anything ever standardised in that field? I imagine with much of > >> P2P traffic being (how shall I put this...) less than legal, it's of > >> questionable legality and the ISPs would not want to be held liable > >> for the content cached there? > > > > The ISP is off the hook on that one. 17 USC 512(2) specifically carves out > > an ISP > > safe-harbor for data that's only cached on an ISP's servers due to an end > > user's request. IANAL, so have somebody you pay for legal advice read 17 > > USC 512(2) > > and tell you what they think. > > So it that is true, if you define "news server" as a "cache", even > though you have to buy several terabytes, make that several petabytes, > to "be able to "cache" this data one along with all the network > environment to support getting data out of this "cache", the ISP is > completely in the clear even though that "cache" is the sole single > point where one can retrieve that "cached" data from even years after > the data was originally put on the network, the original is gone and > that "cache" works without anything being attached to it ? :)
There is existant _recent case law, specifically with regard to operating a newsserver, that holds otherwise. Of course the server operator was blatently _advertizing_ the copyright-infringing (and more) nature of their content. Several of the major ISPs who recently discontinued providing USENET did so as a direct result of the above-mentioned case -- attorney-generals were 'making noises' -- and the ISP chose not to risk a confrontation.
