On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 1:00 PM, John Adams <j...@retina.net> wrote: > http://www.mediabistro.com/appnewser/files/2012/02/infographic-dmca-process1.png
The process here is not correct— or at least it has some unstated assumptions and a confusing presentation. For example, if— as a safe harbor enjoying service provider— the complaint is obviously bogus and as a result you don't care to lose the safe harbor in this particular instance, you can skip the entire process and deposit the DMCA notice into the trash. (This is, for example, why the public can't simply manage to keep the whitehouse website ~permanently disconnected from the internet with a stream of endless bogus complaints anti-dmca activists engaging in civil disobedience) It seems to be intermixing the roles of the safe harbor enjoying service provider and the non-protected posting party. The initial steps are all service provider roles, the but counter-notice is provided end user. The question posted there carries the wrong implication too: a user who has violated copyright is not protected from ending up in court just because they don't counter notice. -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
