[128063] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv4 Exhaustion...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (nick hatch)
Fri Jul 23 18:17:49 2010
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=NLxNdUK=NH3n_6SacDvk8Rn_i+pHzh=YJ0Jyb@mail.gmail.com>
From: nick hatch <nicholas.hatch@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 15:16:06 -0700
To: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 10:11 AM, Positively Optimistic <
positivelyoptimistic@gmail.com> wrote:
> How do ISPs handle RIAA notices when NATTING customers.. ? We have
> several customers that don't require public address space that could be
> moved to private.. We're reluctant to make the move due to legal
> liabilities..
>
It might be helpful to review the requirements for DMCA Safe Harbor for
conduit communication providers, specifically section 512(a). It's been my
experience that some networks (.edu's in particular) have voluntarily
expanded their actions in response to DMCA complaints, and will sometimes
falsely attribute these actions to DMCA requirements.
If I recall correctly, the primary responsibilities for a conduit provider
are limited to terminating repeat offenders, and informing subscribers of
this policy. The DMCA doesn't explicitly define what a repeat offender is,
nor does it explicitly mandate specific logging measures.
If a provider makes best-effort attempts to correlate complaints to
subscribers in order to track repeat offenders, I'm not sure there is a
liability problem here.
-Nick
