Quote:
Originally Posted by slapass
It would if they did. They did not. This was pretty provable with the evidence. It was a bad serve on the warrant, not a lack of proof of wrong doing.
|
Reread the complaint the entire argument about not complying with the DMCA was because
1. stored the file once and created unique pointers for each user
2. they removed links (that were reported) to the content rather then removing the original file. (removed access not the content)
Many legal experts have come to the conclusion that is good enough given the fact that the DMCA gives the service provider the choice between removing the file and removing access
Quote:
|
if the person described in paragraph (1)(A) makes that material available online without the authorization of the copyright owner of the material, the service provider responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing upon notification of claimed infringement as described in subsection (c)(3), except that this subparagraph applies only if—
|
given the fact that the same exact file could have an infringing use (distribution) and a non infringing use (backup, space shifting) depending on if the unique url was shared or not shared it really was the only way they could do what they both prevent infringement and serve those people who were using the service legitimately.