OT Re: Beware: a very bad precedent set

Wrong, wrong, wrong, Dr. Wrongy W. Wrongenstein.

If you're served with notice that you have a downstream customer /conducting
business that's illegal or tortious/ , you can't ignore it..

IANAL(yet), but ISPs don't really enjoy the same rights as "public carriers"
s/a telcos. And in this case, ISP didnt act to protect itself under
safe-harbor. They just liked the cash.

They're not responsible for inspecting "tens of millions of packets per
second". Where'd that come from?

They _are_ responsible for ignoring FedEx'd documents containing C&Ds /
notices of infringement. Some 15 violations, if you read the decision.

Jury findings:

10: "Did [Louis Vuitton] prove that [ISP] knew ... that one or more of
(their) customers were using (their services) to directly infringe the
copyrights of [Vuitton] and that (ISP could still provide services but not
the infringing website(s))?" -YES-
12: "Did [ISP] (act in a manner that would protect them under DMCA Safe
Harbor"? -NO-
13: "Did [ISP] (do this willfully)?" -YES-

Your business break the law in the name of the Dollar, your business will

That's the precedent here.

And, btw, "How do I configure my router for legal discussions on nanog-L?"