On Oct 24, 2009, at 11:20 AM, Brett Frankenberger wrote:
On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 11:06:29AM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Oct 24, 2009, at 10:53 AM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 09:36:05AM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Oct 24, 2009, at 9:28 AM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
Outside of child pornography there is no content that I would ever
consider censoring without a court order nor would I ever purchase
transit from a company that engages in this type of behavior.
A DMCA takedown order has the force of law.
It most certainly does not.
It "most certainly" does.
The DMCA defines a process by which copyright violations can be
handled. One of the options in that process is to send a
counter-notice to the takedown notice.
Laws frequently have multiple options for compliance. Doesn't mean
you
don't have to follow the law.
But you should understand the law.
That's a matter of opinion. :)
The DMCA does NOT require that any provider, anywhere, ever, take down
material because they were notified that the material is infringing on
a copyright holder's rights.
Who said it does? I "most certainly" did not. If you think I did,
try reading again.
What the DMCA does say is that if a provider receives such a
notification, and promptly takes down the material, then the ISP is
immune from being held liable for the infringement. Many providers
routinely take down material when they receive a DMCA take-down
notice.
But if they do so out of the belief that they are required to do so,
they are confused. They are not required to do so. They can choose
to
take it down in exchange for getting the benefit of immunity from
being
sued (many, probably most, providers make this choice). Or they can
choose to leave it up, which leaves them vulnerable to a lawsuit by
the
copyright holder. (In such a lawsuit, they copyright holder would
have
to prove that infringement occurred and that the provider is liable
for
it.)
See, we agree.
So what was the problem again? =)
And if anyone wants to get upset at a provider for doing what is best
for their business, perhaps by saying they are 'giving in to a bully'
or other silliness, then they should be ignored.
Sometimes it's worth the $$ on lawyers so you can get more customers
because people believe you will stand up for them. Sometimes it is
not. But a for-profit business is, well, for-profit. And even if you
make the wrong business decision, it's still YOUR decision. You risk
your business either way you decide, and things are rarely cut-and-
dried. People from the outside without all the information telling
you you what to do are being silly.
Like I always say: Your Network, Your Decision.
Anyone care to argue otherwise?
--
TTFN,
patrick
P.S. still doesn't mean HE should have taken down non-infringing sites.
