1. I'm fine with both propositions, but you might make your assumptions more explicit. You may be assuming that copyright owners send legitimate DMCA takedown notices after doing a minimum level of review. However, copyright owners also spam service providers with automatically-generated or poorly researched takedown notices and force service providers to spend significant time reviewing the legitimacy of the takedown notices. 512(f) is supposed to deter such spamming, but it's been relatively toothless. As a result, the cost-benefit analysis may be more complicated. Eric.

  2. How about making the INFRINGERS paying for the takedown efforts? Many copyright owners don't have the resources of the RIAA (artists, photographers, authors). Of course, that begs the question as to how to make them pay.

  3. Brandon

    Isn't this post a non-sequitur? Scroggins is talking about intimidating and even banning his paying customers who are accused of infringing, which is not the same as taking down a hosted file pursuant to a DMCA notice. Maybe the safe harbor compensates him for the latter, but there is no such regime with respect to file sharing. Am I missing something?

  4. Brandon – My first impulse was to disregard your comment but since you dropped the Latin in there I have to take it seriously!

    Anyway, did you interpret the correspondence sent on behalf of the copyright owners to be anything other than notice sent pursuant Section 512? The correspondence I read had all the elements of a 512 notice, including identification of the works alleged to be infringed and the "under penalty of perjury" boilerplate.

    Remember, the DMCA safe harbor concerns more than just hosted content, but also transmissions of content and search engines. What's more, I don't think any of us should be so naive to assume that if the copyright holders were to pursue an infringement action against Bayou, that Bayou wouldn't shout "DMCA Safe Harbor!" as loudly as it could, right out of the gate.

  5. jonst

    How about a presumption of fair use? Sticking with the holding in the Universal case, let the copyright owners offer some evidence that there is no fair use involved.

  6. Kelly

    Your question, and the article you are linking to are about two very different things. You are asking about DMCA takedown notices. Like you, I think the ISP should not be paid for responding to these. A proper takedown notice includes specific details on the location of the information to be removed, and that the information is located on a server under the direct control of the ISP. Little or no effort is required to respond to such a request, and the elimination of legal liability is more than sufficient compensation for this.

    The article is commenting on disconnecting the ISP's customers due to unproven allegations made by the recording industry. This is more or less equivalent to asking the phone company to disconnect your phone service because the gas station down the street thinks you're using the phone to plan a robbery. At the very least, the ISP would be forced to do enough investigation to defend itself against a breach of contract lawsuit. That sort of investigation is not cheap, nor are the legal bills in defending against a lawsuit negligible. If the recording industry wants that kind of service, then either pay for it up front, or accept full liability for any damage claims from the disconnected customers. As far as I can see, the recording industry is not willing to accept any liability for anything, and it is not fair to force this onto someone who is guilty of nothing more than providing a communication service.

Comments are closed.

Did you enjoy this post? Then please share it with your friends and colleagues: