nanog mailing list archives

Re: Beware: a very bad precedent set


From: John Peach <john-nanog () johnpeach com>
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 08:06:50 -0400

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 08:12:33 +1000
Mark Andrews <marka () isc org> wrote:


In message <4A9C45D2.1000605 () brightok net>, Jack Bates writes:
nanog () wbsconnect com wrote:
Any and all nefarious activity alleged in this lawsuit was
conducted by a c
ustomer, of a customer, of a customer yet the hosting provider was
found liab le, not the actual criminal manufacturing and selling
the fakes.

We had all better watch our backs since it seems that claims of
not being a
ble to inspected tens of millions of packets per second is no
longer a viable excuse.


Hmmm. I thought DMCA made it quite clear that a service provider
cannot ignore reports.

"The Akanoc Defendants___ specific business model of providing
unmanaged server capacity to web hosting resellers does not exempt
them from taking active steps to effectively prevent infringing
activity upon notification from an intellectual property rights
owner. "

I consider that the more important statement in the article. The
"upon 
notification" being the largest issue. Don't know if DMCA covers 
anything outside the scope of copyright, but I think it's been
generally accepted that ignoring reports of infringement can bring
about liability.

Jack
 
It will be interesting to see the court cases against ISP's that
don't shutdown other illegal activities once they have been notified.
abuse@ better not be a blackhole or you are putting yourself at risk
based on this.

..and not before time.


-- 
John


Current thread: