> From nanog-bounces+bonomi=mail.r-bonomi....@nanog.org Wed Aug 22 14:55:41 > 2012 > From: Larry Smith <lesm...@ecsis.net> > To: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: Copyright infringement notice > Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 14:55:13 -0500 > > On Wed August 22 2012 14:07, Robert Bonomi wrote: > > I'm NOT SURE whether the ISP has any potential liability in _this_ > > situation -- there's nothing 'published' by their customer for them to > > 'take down', etc. > > Actually, I believe in most cases the only way "they" (DMCA)
There is no 'they' that is the DMCA -- it is simply a piece of legislation. That said, there is nothing the OP said to indicate that what he received _was_ a DMCA 'takedown notice'. although a follow-up did *assume* that that was what the OP received. IF it _was_ a DMCA takedown notice, regarding 'publication' by the customer, then yes, the ISP has a problem -- *if* they don't act "as the law requires". > see the > data is that it _is_ published as a bittorrent file, meaning that others > can leach or download from that location as well as the originating > (or original) file itself. In almost all cases that I have received these, > I can open my torrent, search for that file, and the IP address mentioned > shows up as a possible download (almost, not all)... Not having a copy of the actual notice the OP received, I find it necessary to assume that the desciption the OP provided is accurate. That it _was_ a 'complaint' about a user =downloading= something. *NOT* a DMCA takedown notice. With the follow-up messages indicating there _is_ a potocol in place with a number of major ISPs for escalating notices that 'you got caught downloading', it seems likely that what the OP got is not DMCA 'takedown notice' stuff. If what you got -was- DMCA takedown notice, it's a different kettle of fish.
