|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> In-Reply-To: <201208222153.q7MLruZV064948@mail.r-bonomi.com> Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 15:04:40 -0700 To: Robert Bonomi <bonomi@mail.r-bonomi.com> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org On Aug 22, 2012, at 14:53 , Robert Bonomi <bonomi@mail.r-bonomi.com> = wrote: >> =46rom nanog-bounces+bonomi=3Dmail.r-bonomi.com@nanog.org Wed Aug 22 = 14:55:41 2012 >> From: Larry Smith <lesmith@ecsis.net> >> To: nanog@nanog.org >> Subject: Re: Copyright infringement notice >> Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 14:55:13 -0500 >>=20 >> On Wed August 22 2012 14:07, Robert Bonomi wrote: >>> I'm NOT SURE whether the ISP has any potential liability in _this_ >>> situation -- there's nothing 'published' by their customer for them = to >>> 'take down', etc. >>=20 >> Actually, I believe in most cases the only way "they" (DMCA) >=20 > There is no 'they' that is the DMCA -- it is simply a piece of = legislation. > That said, there is nothing the OP said to indicate that what he = received > _was_ a DMCA 'takedown notice'. although a follow-up did *assume* that = that > was what the OP received. >=20 Yes... In this case, "they" would be the DMCA authors -- the RIAA and = the MPAA. (which is what I suspect Mr. Smith actually meant). Owen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |