|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> In-Reply-To: <88FEBC82-7AA2-4FC5-B6E6-9FFAB7EA505D@isipp.com> Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 11:42:31 -0700 To: "Anne P. Mitchell, Esq." <amitchell@isipp.com> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org Of all the legal advice I've seen posted to NANOG, I think this might be = the first time it's come from a lawyer. Great post, Anne. Thanks for the advice. Owen On Aug 22, 2012, at 11:17 , "Anne P. Mitchell, Esq." = <amitchell@isipp.com> wrote: >=20 >> 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. >=20 > 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?) >=20 > This is part of the RIAA's "graduated response" program, to which = several major ISPs, including AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast, have agreed. >=20 > 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). >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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= >=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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > These two articles give a pretty good explanation of the deal: >=20 > = https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/03/graduated-response-deal-steamrollers= -towards-july-1-launch >=20 > = http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/07/major-isps-agree-to-six-strikes= -copyright-enforcement-plan/ >=20 > Anne >=20 > 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 >=20
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |