Re: Copyright infringement notice

[Robert Bonomi <bonomi () mail r-bonomi com>]

> From nanog-bounces+bonomi=mail.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
>
> 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.
>
> Actually, I believe in most cases the only way "they" (DMCA)

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.

IF it _was_ a DMCA takedown notice, regarding 'publication' by the customer,
then yes, the ISP has a problem -- *if* they don't act "as the law requires".

>                                                              see the
> data is that it _is_ published as a bittorrent file, meaning that others
> can leach or download from that location as well as the originating
> (or original) file itself.  In almost all cases that I have received these,
> I can open my torrent, search for that file, and the IP address mentioned
> shows up as a possible download (almost, not all)...

Not having a copy of the actual notice the OP received, I find it necessary
to assume that the desciption the OP provided is accurate.  That it _was_
a 'complaint' about a user =downloading= something. *NOT* a DMCA takedown
notice.  With the follow-up messages indicating there _is_ a potocol in
place with a number of major ISPs  for escalating notices that 'you got
caught downloading', it seems likely that what the OP got is not DMCA 
'takedown notice' stuff.  If what you got -was- DMCA takedown notice, it's
a different kettle of fish.