Quote:
Originally Posted by Quentin
The part you appear to have missed I've rendered in bold above -- namely, that if an ISP chooses not to follow the takedown process, that ISP then loses the safe harbor provided to it under the DMCA.
That is just not at all the same thing as being immune from liability with respect to claims brought against you under the DMCA.
If you think that's a trivial matter.... well, nothing I can post here in explanation of why it would be a disaster for an ISP to lose safe harbor will make a lick of difference.
A parting thought for you, courtesy of Alexander Pope:
|
I am certain that in your zeal to attack me you missed the real point.
"If it would not be liable under pre-DMCA copyright law (for example, because it is not contributorily or vicariously liable, or because there is no underlying copyright infringement), it can still raise those same defenses if it is sued."
Simply put, if the ISP would not be liable under the old law, it is not liable under the new.
An ISP could be sued but suing takes a ton up front and tell me, you are going to sue Google?
Let me know how that shit works out, Okay?
r.e.: Alexander Pope:
:The version 'a little learning' is widely attributed to Alexander Pope (1688 - 1744). It is found in An Essay on Criticism, 1709, and I can find no earlier example of the expression in print:
"A little learning is a dangerous thing;
drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
and drinking largely sobers us again."
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/a...ous-thing.html
You, my not so friend, need to do more fucking homework!
