>> Laws frequently have multiple options for compliance. Doesn't mean
>> you don't have to follow the law.
> A DMCA takedown notice isn't "law," Patrick, and does not have the
> of law" claimed above.
You say potato, I say whatever. "In the field of law, the word force
has two main meanings: unlawful violence and lawful compulsion." They
are lawfully compelling you to take down the content, or explain why
you should not.
I think you need to read the DMCA. You may feel free to point out
where it says "service provider must do X." Because I suspect you
will find out that it _really_ says, "in order to retain safe harbor
protection, service provider must do X."
The latter is not lawfully compelling me to do anything.
This is no different from many "legal" notices. If
you ignore the notice, you risk legal ramifications, including the
loss of Safe Harbor defense.
This pice of paper has the "force" of the US gov't behind it. What
would you call "the force of law?"
Feel free to believe otherwise. IANAL (or even an ISP :), so maybe
I'm wrong. But I'm not going to think poorly of any provider who
I "believe" what the lawyers tell me. They tell me that we may lose
safe harbor if we do not comply with a takedown notice. That's about
>>> This seems like a very obvious case of parody/fair use,
>> Possibly, but I do not blame a provider to not being willing to make
>> that distinction.
> Yes, but it's troubling that a nontrivial provider of transit would
> such a mistake. This is like Cogent, who, at one point, received a
> (or possibly just abuse complaint) about content being posted
> through a
> server of a client's, and who proceeded to try to null-route that
> news server's address.
[snip - bunch of stuff about Cogent]
It is almost certainly not "like" anything.
I'm guessing that you have no clue what actually happened. People are
making assumptions from third-party accounts using 5th hand info.
Generalization is bad, generalization on such flimsy info is silly.
Maybe they typo'ed a filter list. Maybe some newbie over-reacted.
Maybe the customer did not pay their bill. WE HAVE NO IDEA WHY THIS
Of course not. But there are at least some of us who have been through
all of this; we can fill in the blanks and make some reasonable
> To be clear: I agree that a provider might not want to make a
> distinction between a legitimate DMCA takedown and something that's
> not, but it is reasonable to limit oneself to the things required by
> the DMCA. Null-routing a virtual web server's IP and interfering
> with the operation of other services is probably overreaching, at
> least as a first step.
I have stated over & over that it is not right for HE to take down non-
infringing sites - _if_ that is what happened.
So why are we having this discussion?
Because it appears that HE took down non-infringing sites?
Excuse me for stating the obvious.