[148776] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Megaupload.com seized
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Robert Bonomi)
Sun Jan 22 16:56:57 2012
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 16:00:15 -0600 (CST)
From: Robert Bonomi <bonomi@mail.r-bonomi.com>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <CAE7MFiJHdYLzftqPf71rWprzKn3p8G5UE33w0D_RXaPRLt1pFg@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Nick B <nick@pelagiris.org> wrote:
> I'm about 90% sure that in a fair court, it would be concluded that
> disabling the reported URL qualifies as disabling access to the material.
> The court might then issue an injunction to, in the future, disable *all*
> *possible* access to the material, but that's not the current text of the
> law. YMMV
The crux of the issue is whether a single DMCA take down notice refers only
to the content itemized in the notice, or to _all_ content that matches the
identification in the notice. It is a *significant* difference, because the
former requires the _complainant_ to identify all the 'infringing' items,
while the latter requires the notice _recipient_ to search out all other
content that matches the notice. Obviously, each side would rather have
the other guy do all the work.`
