Ken McClelland demurred: > dmca does NOT require the isp to police content; > indeed, provides a number of safe harbors that generally require that the > isp NOT be policing content in order to take advantage of the safe harbor. > what dmca does require (at least under certain conditions) is that the isp > remove allegedly infringing material once the isp receives > notification--then there are procedures to be followed re disputing whether > the material is infringing, getting it put back up, etc.
Which is not "policing content" in what way? The fact is that a lot of ISPs are scared spitless of the DMCA's provisions and are, as a result, actively monitoring for and shutting down warez d00dz as they discover them. And that, in turn, was EXACTLY the agenda of the big IP owners -- record companies and film studios, mostly -- who bought and paid for the Congressmen necessary to pass that awful piece of legislation. The provisions opening ISPs to liability if they fail, upon notice, to remove "offending" material force them into playing _de facto_ content cops. Just because that requirement is not specifically iterated in the Act itself doesn't mean that it was not intended and expected to produce that result. As far as I'm concerned, if a piece of legislation forces private entities to do ANYTHING in self-defense against liabilities to which that statute otherwise exposes them, then those defensive actions are mandated by the act, regardless of whether they are explicit or implicit requirements. Just my $0.02, mind you -- and I am neither a lawyer in fact, nor do I play one on TV -- but still.. Regards, Thom Stark Telephone: 209-966-2700 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL: http://www.starkrealities.com Postal address: POB 5008 PMB 199, Mariposa, CA 95338-5008 Ship-to address: 5008-A Highway 140, Box 199, Mariposa, CA 95338-9208 PGP public key: http://www.starkrealities.com/thomskey.txt -- general wireless list, a bawug thing <http://www.bawug.org/> [un]subscribe: http://lists.bawug.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
