Hello ,
I get copyright notices from companies like Irdeto , saying that one of my
customers IP is downloading unauthorized material using bittorent. I also
have processes in place to handle such notices .
Can anyone share how he handles such notices in his ISP environment , i am
ready to adapt some valid steps to improve the existing process.
Or should i just ignore such messages ?
Rgds
IP
If you're in the U.S., the process for handling these notices is
prescribed by law, specifically the Digital Millennium Copyright Act
(search: DMCA takedown notice). It details what the infringement
notice must include in order to be actionable and what steps the ISP
must take on receipt of an actionable notice. It also prescribes
procedures for the alleged infringer to object and for the ISP to
restore the material following an objection.
Follow the procedures described in the law to retain your immunity as
an ISP. Consult a local lawyer if you don't find them sufficiently
obvious.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
From nanog-bounces+bonomi=mail.r-bonomi.com@nanog.org Wed Aug 22 10:54:49 2012
From: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 11:54:00 -0400
Subject: Re: Copyright infringement notice
To: groupstudytac groupstudytac <groupstudytac@gmail.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org> I get copyright notices from companies like Irdeto , saying that one of my
> customers IP is downloading unauthorized material using bittorent. I also
> have processes in place to handle such notices .
>
> Can anyone share how he handles such notices in his ISP environment , i am
> ready to adapt some valid steps to improve the existing process.
>
> Or should i just ignore such messages ?If you're in the U.S., the process for handling these notices is
prescribed by law, specifically the Digital Millennium Copyright Act
(search: DMCA takedown notice). It details what the infringement
notice must include in order to be actionable and what steps the ISP
must take on receipt of an actionable notice. It also prescribes
procedures for the alleged infringer to object and for the ISP to
restore the material following an objection.Follow the procedures described in the law to retain your immunity as
an ISP. Consult a local lawyer if you don't find them sufficiently
obvious.
Note: the DMCA, and 'takedown notices' associated therewith apply to
contet that an ISP customer is 'publishing' by public display on the
Internet.
The OP is getting notices that someone with an IP address in a netblock
'belonging' to the ISP he operates is _downloading_ content that 'someone
else' [more than one such entity, in all probability, given that it's
bittorrent, and presumably exteral to the OP's netblock(s)] is doing the
'publishing' addressed by the DMCA, and the 'safe harbor' provisions
for ISPs.
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.
However, the *only* reasonable/rational recommedation that can be made
to the OP is "consult competent professional legal counsel in *your*
jurisdiction." It is virtully a requirement to do this on a "paid",
"commercial", "lawyer-client" basis, and to get the 'opinion' _in_writing_,
so that *if* the advice received (and which was followed) turns out
'after the fact' to be incorrect, one has recourse aginst the lawyer's
malpractice insurance (to make one whole, as far as the 'detrimental
reliance' on the opinion that was proven to be incorrect).
*I* would be tempted to respond, *once*, to the issuer of such notices,
to the effect that customemr info is disclosed only upon receipt of a
valid court subpoena, and the 'records production' costs are $$/hr, with
an $xx minimum. And, if they persited in the FUD notices, I would explicitly
*block* the source (not 'discard', but actively block -- so that they have
'actual notice' of non-delivery).
I *WOULD*, however, take my own advice, and pay a competent lawyer for
a consultation, BEFORE actually doing anything of the sort. <grin>
Actually, I believe in most cases the only way "they" (DMCA) 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)...
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> 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.
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