3 ms·
> No, they aren't obligated to do anything. This is semantics. Because github absolutely would not be able to exist if it lost its safe harbor protections. S
by stale2002 6y ago
> No, they aren't obligated to do anything.
This is semantics. Because github absolutely would not be able to exist if it lost its safe harbor protections.
So, it is "obligated", in that if it does not follow these laws, then it will 100% have shut down, eventually, due to business reasons.
If the alternative to doing a certain action, is that your business will almost certainly be shut down eventually, then I think that is a reasonable situation to use the word "obligated" for.
- dragonwriter 6y ago> Because github absolutely would not be able to exist if it lost its safe harbor protections. It wouldn't lose them generally, just with regard to the act of hosting that specific item. Without commenting on the particular case, if the claimed theory of infringement was patently frivolous on its face, even if the notice was formally valid under the DMCA, it would be reasonable for a provider to ignore the notice because they had insufficient risk of liability to concern themselves with. (This is conversely why providers tend to be less good at responding to counter-notices, again, the only hammer is liability shield, but this is for any liability they would have to the person whose content was taken down for taking it down. As this is usually none to start with, they are quite free to be cavalier with counter-notice process.)