Quote:
Originally Posted by RawAlex
Kicks, one of the things about DMCA is that if the party owning the site isn't responsive and doesn't take action, the host once notified really does need to get involved. This is doubly true if the whois information on the domain in question isn't valid or the domain owner cannot be contacted (say a registered letter is returned unopened or the owner cannot be served). At that point the host does have responsibilities to block access to the offending material until such time that the site owner can clarify their rights to the material.
Filing of a false DMCA report is actionable, so people can't just randomly dump stuff on hosts without backing.
A host that fails to take action in a reasonable time after notification leaves themselves open to further legal action, contributory copyright infringement, etc. Hosts may think they are safe but they have responsbilities as well.
|
RawAlex: first sending a DMCA to a website owner is awaste of time, send them directly to the host. As I said we are not to "judge" anything, we have no choice in the matter, the laws are clear for us we must comply, end of story. It really dont matter what the customer has to say we have to comply, even if it is a mistake we have to comply and the web site owner has the burden of proof not us. That is part of why there is a DMCA.
And yes a valid DMCA does give recourse to the site owner against the person filling a false complaint, again this does not affect the host. DMCA takes all that away from hosting companies, it simply forces us to comply.
Sorry I didnt make that clear in my post but yes I think we are both on the same page.