posted twice it gets old:1orglaugh

Oh, that was easy, Just claim "some lawyer" told you otherwise. Look, the section on host liability is all of a couple of paragraphs. I'll help you: look in section 512(c). Find *anything* about the host having the right to determine the legitimacy of the copyright claim beyond accepting the sworn statement of the complaining party.

You WON'T, because they CAN'T.

Find the section in the law or otherwise you're just one more person making a false claim he can't back up. If I've misinterpreted the law, cite the exact paragraph. Or have your lawyer come here and do it for you.

You can provide the email address for DMCA notices, but the Copyright Office wants more, and this information is not subject to privacy laws.

(A) the name, address, phone number, and electronic mail address of the agent.

(B) other contact information which the Register of Copyrights may deem appropriate.

The operative word in sub-para A is "and." See Section 512(C)(2). Most of these hosts don't have a registered agent, making them ineligible for safe harbor anyway. Not that it matters, as hosts like Oron don't qualify anyway because of 512(C)(1)(b): they directly benefit financially from the infringing activity, and by paying a bounty to the uploader encourage the infringing activity.

You think i care enough about you to do that?

Really?

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

when you use the term "hosts", are you referring legally to the actual server location, or are you referring to an entity hosting, ie. any website?

http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2007/...wn-dmca-agent/

http://www.freelancewritinggigs.com/...for-your-site/

Proving you're not just talking out of your ass isn't for me, pal, it's for you.

A "host" is anyone that literally delivers content, or is involved in the delivery of the content. It can be a website, ISP, hosting company, and many other entities.

The DMCA was written to provide an exclusion for Internet service providers, but websites have adopted the safe harbor provisions as also covering them. This works as long as the site derives no direct financial gain from the infringement. So, Google is covered because they don't charge. Oron and their ilk are not.

interesting, he makes the point that this applies to user posted material, but that if the website owner posts it himself it is not covered

I wonder where this leads,

situation 1: if you as a webmaster embed a video from youtube, does that make you at risk of a copyright lawsuit if someone wanted to sue you?

situation 2: user uploads a picture to your site, you moderate it by looking at it, approve it and post it to your site in a blog post with commentary under it... does this now make you responsible as the site owner? vs. a typical forum where a user upload goes live the instant the user uploads it?

situation 3: tube site has supposed user uploads, but in tests, videos uploaded do not seem to ever go live, meaning they go through a moderation process, can the tube site owner claim any protection from copyright claims?

they are making a difference between content one actually creates and has copyright/rights for, and content that is uploaded to your site.

read the examples again.

basically, you need a registered copyright agent to get safe harbor.

this is also U.S. law specifically, but if one is a resident of another country, I wonder how they can get safe harbor, for example does England have a copyright agent registry?

also, in the actual DMCA law, is their a specific legal definition of a "copyright agent"? seems to me that if there is any ambiguity, one could deem themselves as copyright agent without paying the government $108 to register?

and back to my examples, can you even get any kind of safe harbor for those kinds of situations? I can see how youtube does it, when a user uploads a video, it is up and viewable immediately, but the adult tube sites don't work that way,

so I wonder if that extra step of moderation, where the webmaster physically examines and posts the videos, takes away any possible safe harbor,


or is the dmca law all cool with that and as long as some "user" somewhere uploaded something, a webmaster can post it all he wants as long as he takes it down in timely fashion if someone sends him a dmca notice?

using a us registra for the domain does not bind you to US laws.
in fact if you look up the mininova case with bein you will see that they got their ass handed to them because they complied with DMCA takedown request even though their business was located in a completely different country

when they tried to take advantage of the safe harbor provision they were told that it was not applicable to their countries laws, and they were missing key issues to their countries DMCA process.

you might want to take your own advice about doing research before shooting your mouth off.

the extra hoops that MUTT has been forced to jump thru are most likely the extra requirements defined by that countries equivalent, if they were just made up as you seem to be saying, he could own their ass in court without every complying to those requests.

knowing a little about canada/EU equivelents, such request for "proof" are not out of line, and until those conditions are met, the takedown request is not valid in those jurisdictions.