Steve,
Unless there's some special circumstance you're not under any obligation
to provide service to anyone. You could disconnect them for any reason
you want.....though obviously they don't have to pay you for the service
if you're not delivering it. I.E.: there's no basis to fight a
disconnect no matter why you did it.
(The notable exception would be civil rights. You couldn't disconnect
someone for being Black, female, handicapped, etc. Not that anyone here
would do that.)
The safe harbor bit of the DMCA says you are immune from any
responsibility for carrying the unlawful traffic if you stop the
unlawful traffic once you're made aware of it, and I'm not clear that
you're liable for carrying it to begin with. It's like if they sent a
notice to the post office that sometimes people put Anthrax spores into
the mail and the post office chooses to continue delivering mail because
99.999999% of mail doesn't have Anthrax and they can't reasonably screen
it all for Anthrax just in case. I could be wrong on this point, but I
think disconnecting the offender after DMCA notices means you explicitly
have no liability and /not /disconnecting the offender means we could
have an argument about whether you're liable, but you aren't
automatically liable.
Regarding Net Neutrality: The 2015 Open Internet Order had 3 main rules,
but none of them applied to unlawful traffic. You could have blocked
illegal activity without violating those rules, and they don't impose
any additional obligations about whether or not you can disconnect anyone.
As an aside: I hate that we (everyone) keep calling the Open Internet
Order "net neutrality". Net Neutrality still exists, and almost every
ISP exhibits the desired neutral behavior without being told. The net
is still neutral.
-Adam
On 9/4/2018 11:58 AM, Steve Jones wrote:
Forwarding policies are invalidated, and there is caselaw to fight a
disconnect. This better not end up with. Them targeting us again.
Really though that'd still need a search warrant or subpoena to
involve us wouldn't they?
This is where net neutrality may have helped us, not that I want it
back, but we could have said "but we aren't allowed to do anything"
On Tue, Sep 4, 2018, 10:03 AM Chuck McCown <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
I am thinking it would strengthen it.
*From:* Steve Jones
*Sent:* Monday, September 03, 2018 9:23 PM
*To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Court of appeals: IP address is not enough
to sue someone for copyright infringement
hopefully this doesnt degrade safe harbor
On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 12:21 PM Bill Prince <[email protected]>
wrote:
I agree.
bp
<part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
On 9/3/2018 10:14 AM, [email protected] wrote:
I think the court got it right.
*From:* Eric Kuhnke
*Sent:* Sunday, September 2, 2018 10:50 PM
*To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group
*Subject:* [AFMUG] Court of appeals: IP address is not enough
to sue someone for copyright infringement
https://www.techspot.com/news/76190-us-court-appeals-ip-address-isnt-enough-identify.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
AF mailing list
[email protected]
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
--
AF mailing list
[email protected]
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
AF mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
--
AF mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
--
AF mailing list
[email protected]
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
