[58329] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: DMCA Violation?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Thu May 8 10:37:22 2003
To: "Christopher J. Wolff" <chris@bblabs.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 08 May 2003 06:29:25 PDT."
<001c01c31565$d8093c70$0400a8c0@CPQ28623125852>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Thu, 08 May 2003 10:32:29 -0400
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
--==_Exmh_1335241303P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Thu, 08 May 2003 06:29:25 PDT, "Christopher J. Wolff" <chris@bblabs.co=
m> said:
> Has anyone seen a copy of the following email? Furthermore, has it bee=
n
> determined which ISP services create a legal or equitable liability for=
> the ISP? God help us if providing transport to an FTP site counts as
> one of the offending services. I guess it's time to turn on NBAR at th=
e
> edge routers.
Congrats. You're the recipient of a "512 takedown notice". (There exist=
ISP's
that haven't gotten one before? I'm amazed..;)
(Note - IANAL, what follows is my understanding of what the law says. If=
you're worried, get competent legal advice as well).
We get about 250 of these a year. The MPAA and RIAA notices read almost
identically. 17 USC 512 is pretty clear about the ISP 'safe harbor' and =
what
you have to do to keep it - basically, you as an ISP do *NOT* have to wor=
ry
about content that happens to be on or go through your servers as a resul=
t of
your user's actions *IF* you take action when you *do* receive an infring=
ment
notice (one of the *good* things about the DMCA, incidentally - fielding =
250
complaints a year is a lot easier than filtering an OC12 for content and
worrying if you miss something).
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/512.html is the full text - it's
actually fairly readable.
All you have to do is make the infringing material not accessible - and
17 USC 512 is *very* non-specific as to *how* you do it. You can nuke th=
e
file, you can change the permissions, you can make the user remove it - y=
our
call. You just have to make it inaccessible, and if you have a repeat
violator, you need to have a policy that allows you to terminate them.
They even don't specify a time frame other than "expeditiously", so as
long as you aren't dragging your feet, you're probably OK.
Our standard procedure for first-time offenders is to track down the user=
who
has/had the IP address in question, and e-mail them a notice that basical=
ly
says "Take it down by COB today, and notify us you've done so, or your ac=
cess
will be terminated".
As far as "Big Brother" goes, 17 USC 512 is *NOT* the big problem in the=
DMCA
(in fact, I'd say that 17 USC 512 is reasonably good legislation - it giv=
es
the ISP a safe harbor, gives the copyright owners a clear path of action,=
and 17 USC 512 (f) and (g) talk about what happens if the MPAA/RIAA/whate=
ver
make a mistake).
If you want an example of *bad* legislation in the DMCA, go read 17 USC =
1201
(b)(1)(A) - the infamous "circumvention clause". The problem is that it
prohibits you from gaining access to information you could otherwise obta=
in
under "fair use" (you've paid for the DVD, but you're not allowed to desc=
ramble
it so you can actually *USE* it, for example).
--==_Exmh_1335241303P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQE+ump9cC3lWbTT17ARAk38AJwIhEP1c/QFilgyGVdFrQzUfVYK3ACfSutd
xwJ7vz1owmOEOKZaX/vC0Y8=
=WR4i
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1335241303P--
