[155747] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Copyright infringement notice
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.)
Wed Aug 22 14:17:44 2012
From: "Anne P. Mitchell, Esq." <amitchell@isipp.com>
In-Reply-To: <mailman.7805.1345654881.68975.nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 12:17:02 -0600
To: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 6:16 AM, groupstudytac groupstudytac
> <groupstudytac@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I get copyright notices from companies like Irdeto , saying that one =
of my
>> customers IP is downloading unauthorized material using bittorent. I =
also
>> have processes in place to handle such notices .
>>=20
>> Can anyone share how he handles such notices in his ISP environment , =
i am
>> ready to adapt some valid steps to improve the existing process.
>>=20
>> Or should i just ignore such messages ?
>=20
> If you're in the U.S., the process for handling these notices is
> prescribed by law, specifically the Digital Millennium Copyright Act
> (search: DMCA takedown notice). It details what the infringement
> notice must include in order to be actionable and what steps the ISP
> must take on receipt of an actionable notice. It also prescribes
> procedures for the alleged infringer to object and for the ISP to
> restore the material following an objection.
>=20
> Follow the procedures described in the law to retain your immunity as
> an ISP. Consult a local lawyer if you don't find them sufficiently
> obvious.
The thing that muddies this is that, as I understand it, the notice was =
not for takedown (i.e. there is not an allegation that they are =
*hosting* infringing material) - it is a notice that one of their users =
*downloaded* copyrighted material (IP, do I have that right?)
This is part of the RIAA's "graduated response" program, to which =
several major ISPs, including AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast, have agreed.
Basically, the accuser contacts the ISP, and the ISP sends a warning (a =
"copyright alert") to their user (without giving up the user to the =
accuser).
If the same user is accused subsequently, they get another, sterner =
warning. In total there is a series of six warnings, with "mitigation =
measures" accompanying the fifth and sixth warning.
If I were counseling an ISP - whether one that was part of the =
agreement, or not - I would say that the first order is to *put your =
policy around copyright alerts in writing* - asap - and make it as =
specific as possible - and then *ALWAYS FOLLOW IT EVERY SINGLE TIME*. =20=
It almost (I say almost) doesn't matter what the policy is so long as =
it's reasonable, but it matters that it be followed to the letter every =
time, no exceptions.
And, if you are an ISP that isn't part of the agreement with the RIAA, =
it's still not a bad idea to structure your policy to follow the six =
"copyright alert" structure, because there is some precedent there, and =
then you come off looking like you are trying to do the right thing, =
which will make you a less easy target.
These two articles give a pretty good explanation of the deal:
=
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/03/graduated-response-deal-steamrollers=
-towards-july-1-launch
=
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/07/major-isps-agree-to-six-strikes=
-copyright-enforcement-plan/
Anne
Anne P. Mitchell, Esq
CEO/President
Institute for Social Internet Public Policy
http://www.ISIPP.com=20
Member, Cal. Bar Cyberspace Law Committee
ISIPP Email Accreditation: http://www.SuretyMail.com
