Of all the legal advice I've seen posted to NANOG, I think this might be the first time it's come from a lawyer.
Great post, Anne. Thanks for the advice. Owen On Aug 22, 2012, at 11:17 , "Anne P. Mitchell, Esq." <amitch...@isipp.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 6:16 AM, groupstudytac groupstudytac >> <groupstudy...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> I get copyright notices from companies like Irdeto , saying that one of my >>> customers IP is downloading unauthorized material using bittorent. I also >>> have processes in place to handle such notices . >>> >>> Can anyone share how he handles such notices in his ISP environment , i am >>> ready to adapt some valid steps to improve the existing process. >>> >>> Or should i just ignore such messages ? >> >> If you're in the U.S., the process for handling these notices is >> prescribed by law, specifically the Digital Millennium Copyright Act >> (search: DMCA takedown notice). It details what the infringement >> notice must include in order to be actionable and what steps the ISP >> must take on receipt of an actionable notice. It also prescribes >> procedures for the alleged infringer to object and for the ISP to >> restore the material following an objection. >> >> Follow the procedures described in the law to retain your immunity as >> an ISP. Consult a local lawyer if you don't find them sufficiently >> obvious. > > The thing that muddies this is that, as I understand it, the notice was not > for takedown (i.e. there is not an allegation that they are *hosting* > infringing material) - it is a notice that one of their users *downloaded* > copyrighted material (IP, do I have that right?) > > This is part of the RIAA's "graduated response" program, to which several > major ISPs, including AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast, have agreed. > > Basically, the accuser contacts the ISP, and the ISP sends a warning (a > "copyright alert") to their user (without giving up the user to the accuser). > > If the same user is accused subsequently, they get another, sterner warning. > In total there is a series of six warnings, with "mitigation measures" > accompanying the fifth and sixth warning. > > If I were counseling an ISP - whether one that was part of the agreement, or > not - I would say that the first order is to *put your policy around > copyright alerts in writing* - asap - and make it as specific as possible - > and then *ALWAYS FOLLOW IT EVERY SINGLE TIME*. > > It almost (I say almost) doesn't matter what the policy is so long as it's > reasonable, but it matters that it be followed to the letter every time, no > exceptions. > > And, if you are an ISP that isn't part of the agreement with the RIAA, it's > still not a bad idea to structure your policy to follow the six "copyright > alert" structure, because there is some precedent there, and then you come > off looking like you are trying to do the right thing, which will make you a > less easy target. > > These two articles give a pretty good explanation of the deal: > > https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/03/graduated-response-deal-steamrollers-towards-july-1-launch > > http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/07/major-isps-agree-to-six-strikes-copyright-enforcement-plan/ > > Anne > > Anne P. Mitchell, Esq > CEO/President > Institute for Social Internet Public Policy > http://www.ISIPP.com > Member, Cal. Bar Cyberspace Law Committee > ISIPP Email Accreditation: http://www.SuretyMail.com >
