On Sat, Jun 22, 2002 at 11:57:32PM -0700, Thom Stark wrote: > 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?
Cause it's *reactive*; they're merely acting as the agent of LEOs for a very specific item of work. "Policing", as that term is commonly used (think "community policing") is an ongoing thing that's proactive. > 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. They'd better not. Cubby and Stratton-Oakmont are likely to make such people *liable*, which DMCA does not. And IANAL, either, but I play one on the net. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] Member of the Technical Staff Baylink RFC 2100 The Suncoast Freenet The Things I Think Tampa Bay, Florida http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274 "If you don't have a dream; how're you gonna have a dream come true?" -- Captain Sensible, The Damned (from South Pacific's "Happy Talk") -- general wireless list, a bawug thing <http://www.bawug.org/> [un]subscribe: http://lists.bawug.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
