nanog mailing list archives
Re: Megaupload.com seized
From: Nick B <nick () pelagiris org>
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 14:32:10 -0500
I just made the brain melting mistake of trying to read the DMCA. The text which jumps out at me is: `(2) EXCEPTION- Paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect to material residing at the direction of a subscriber of the service provider on a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider that is removed, or to which access is disabled by the service provider, pursuant to a notice provided under subsection (c)(1)(C), unless the service provider-- `(A) takes reasonable steps promptly to notify the subscriber that it has removed or disabled access to the material; `(B) upon receipt of a counter notification described in paragraph (3), promptly provides the person who provided the notification under subsection (c)(1)(C) with a copy of the counter notification, and informs that person that it will replace the removed material or cease disabling access to it in 10 business days; and `(C) replaces the removed material and ceases disabling access to it not less than 10, nor more than 14, business days following receipt of the counter notice, unless its designated agent first receives notice from the person who submitted the notification under subsection (c)(1)(C) that such person has filed an action seeking a court order to restrain the subscriber from engaging in infringing activity relating to the material on the service provider's system or network. I'm about 90% sure that in a fair court, it would be concluded that disabling the reported URL qualifies as disabling access to the material. The court might then issue an injunction to, in the future, disable *all* *possible* access to the material, but that's not the current text of the law. YMMV Nick B On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Roland Perry < lists () internetpolicyagency com> wrote:
In article <596B74B410EE6B4CA8A30C3AF1A15**5EA09C8CDBA () RWC-MBX1 corp.** seven.com<596B74B410EE6B4CA8A30C3AF1A155EA09C8CDBA () RWC-MBX1 corp seven com>>, George Bonser <gbonser () seven com> writes The problem is going to be the thousands of people who have now losttheir legitimate files, research data, personal recordings, etc. that they were using Megaupload to share.But that's an operational risk of using any commercial entity as a filestore. Thousands of people lost[1] a lot of work when fotopic.netcollapsed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Fotopic.net<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fotopic.net> [1] As it's getting on for a year since an apparent rescue attempt, and nothing has emerged, this seems a reasonable assumption. -- Roland Perry
Current thread:
- Re: Megaupload.com seized, (continued)
- Re: Megaupload.com seized JC Dill (Jan 23)
- Re: Megaupload.com seized Matthew Kaufman (Jan 21)
- Re: Megaupload.com seized James Smith (Jan 21)
- RE: Megaupload.com seized George Bonser (Jan 22)
- Re: Megaupload.com seized Michael Thomas (Jan 21)
- Re: Megaupload.com seized Joel jaeggli (Jan 21)
- Re: Megaupload.com seized Michael Thomas (Jan 21)
- Re: Megaupload.com seized Jay Ashworth (Jan 21)
- Re: Megaupload.com seized Steven Bellovin (Jan 21)
- Re: Megaupload.com seized Roland Perry (Jan 22)
- Re: Megaupload.com seized Nick B (Jan 22)
- Re: Megaupload.com seized Joseph Snyder (Jan 22)
- Re: Megaupload.com seized Robert Bonomi (Jan 22)
- Re: Megaupload.com seized Jay Ashworth (Jan 22)
- Re: Megaupload.com seized Kevin Day (Jan 21)
- Re: Megaupload.com seized Joly MacFie (Jan 20)
- Re: Megaupload.com seized Joly MacFie (Jan 20)
- RE: Megaupload.com seized Don Bowman (Jan 23)
- Re: Megaupload.com seized Valdis . Kletnieks (Jan 23)