Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery
obeying the DMCA takedown request for a non US hosting operation doesn't give you any safe harbor protection for non US operations.
and if you "compliance" misses something that your own countries laws requires will actually cost you the protection of your own country
google the mininova court case if you don't believe me. That exactly why they got ass raped.
this "shady" process is a direct result of that ruling so you can blame your copyright monopoly buddies in the mpaa for all the extra work.
|
You either don't read the comments here, or have trouble following basic logic, or both. I already said as much about file locker services trying to invoke the safe harbor provisions of DMCA, thinking they can hide behind them -- they can't. And I already said they don't have safe harbor, PERIOD, because they directly benefit financially. I also said that the EU and many other countries have enacted takedown and safe harbor provisions similar to DMCA, so whether you call it "DMCA" or something else the functionality is the same.
Somehow these simple things allude you.
Mininova is a good example of a service thinking they could outrun copyright laws by relying on safe harbor if they adopted content removal policies. They were infringing from the get-go. They wouldn't have gotten a better shake in the US.
Finally, the MPAA is against the ISP safe harbor provisions of the DMCA, for obvious reasons. Their input was prohibiting reverse engineering of DRM. You are stunningly clueless.