5 ms·

Do you and your lawyers not know how DMCA Safe Harbor Provisions work? Time to read up on it, especially this part: https://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/faq

by netik 12y ago

Do you and your lawyers not know how DMCA Safe Harbor Provisions work? Time to read up on it, especially this part: https://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/faq.cgi#QID130 https://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/faq.cgi#QID130 And: https://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/faq.cgi#QID922 https://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/faq.cgi#QID922 You must notify the user and give them the opportunity to file a counter-notice against the complaint. Safe Harbor protects you from this kind of lawsuit. Also forward a copy of the complainant's letter to chilling effects.

StuntPope 12y ago
Greetings from a place called Canada. Different laws up here. It's not so cut and dry (we've already checked this with our attorneys). That said, we'll defend vigorously.
- fleitz 12y ago
  Yes, it's amazing how US law does not apply here. I frequently have to remind my fellow citizens that it makes little sense to plead the 5th here, because whether parliament has sat in the last year will not effect the outcome of your trial.
  - graeme 12y ago
    Countries that don't have 911 as the emergency number often have to mount campaigns telling people not to dial it.
    - jessaustin 12y ago
      If so, it would seem a simple solution to alias "911" to whatever foolish number their backward attempt at civilization uses. b^)
      - Zuider 12y ago
        Nein, nein, nein!
      - owenmarshall 12y ago
        The GSM standard mandates that 911, 112, and 999 (I believe...) be routed as emergency calls when dialed on a GSM cell phone. I think some phones go farther and include 000, 118, and other lesser-used emergency numbers as well.
  - cperciva 12y ago
    it makes little sense to plead the 5th here, because whether parliament has sat in the last year will not effect the outcome of your trial Ah, but you're looking at Section 5 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and when people say "plead the fifth" they're talking about the fifth amendment to the constitution. Of course, we don't number our constitutional amendments; but if you look at them in chronological order, I believe the fifth would be the Statute Law Revision Act, 1893, which... well, actually it did nothing at all except to repeal sections of the British North America Act which no longer had any effect.
    - fleitz 12y ago
      touche.
- toomuchtodo 12y ago
  What about transferring the site's hosting and its ownership to a US entity?
- scottshea 12y ago
  What?! Canada does not have to follow US laws? I am sure there are some whackdoodle-nutjobs in the US government working on changing this somehow.
  - StuntPope 12y ago
    Indeed there are! In fact we're in the midst of another minor tiff over just that issue right now http://blog.easydns.org/2014/08/15/heres-why-we-took-down-a-pharmacy-domain-without-a-court-order/ http://blog.easydns.org/2014/08/15/heres-why-we-took-down-a-...
ferrisford 12y ago
In the first paragraph of the post "he claimed the page ... contained defamatory material" so this isn't the normal cut and dry copyright infringement notice. I'm sure they know how safe harbor works.
petercooper 12y ago
You probably know more about DMCA than me, but I thought it was just about copyright infringement? The post claims the guy who complained in this case was complaining about "defamatory material".
- devicenull 12y ago
  It is just about copyright infringement (and some other types of IP). Hence the name: Digital Millennium Copyright Act
  - petercooper 12y ago
    You never know with American laws. They seem to have a funny way of cramming in totally irrelevant nonsense into bills as a way of getting unpopular items into law.
StuntPope 12y ago
Also - DMCA (AFAIK) is copyright infringement. This suit alleges defamation.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
trhway 12y ago
Having Safe Harbor option doesn't mean that one have to use it as the one may just happen to decide to take a stand against the things s/he doesn't like.
- paulgb 12y ago
  I'm surprised to find this reply at the bottom, as it's the most important point here (besides lack of jurisdiction): the DMCA doesn't require anything from ISPs, it grants them immunity if they follow the procedure. They're allowed to ignore a takedown, they are just liable.

by netik 12y ago

StuntPope 12y ago

Greetings from a place called Canada. Different laws up here. It's not so cut and dry (we've already checked this with our attorneys). That said, we'll defend vigorously.

fleitz 12y ago
Yes, it's amazing how US law does not apply here. I frequently have to remind my fellow citizens that it makes little sense to plead the 5th here, because whether parliament has sat in the last year will not effect the outcome of your trial.
- graeme 12y ago
  Countries that don't have 911 as the emergency number often have to mount campaigns telling people not to dial it.
  - jessaustin 12y ago
    If so, it would seem a simple solution to alias "911" to whatever foolish number their backward attempt at civilization uses. b^)
    - Zuider 12y ago
      Nein, nein, nein!
    - owenmarshall 12y ago
      The GSM standard mandates that 911, 112, and 999 (I believe...) be routed as emergency calls when dialed on a GSM cell phone. I think some phones go farther and include 000, 118, and other lesser-used emergency numbers as well.
- cperciva 12y ago
  it makes little sense to plead the 5th here, because whether parliament has sat in the last year will not effect the outcome of your trial Ah, but you're looking at Section 5 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and when people say "plead the fifth" they're talking about the fifth amendment to the constitution. Of course, we don't number our constitutional amendments; but if you look at them in chronological order, I believe the fifth would be the Statute Law Revision Act, 1893, which... well, actually it did nothing at all except to repeal sections of the British North America Act which no longer had any effect.
  - fleitz 12y ago
    touche.
toomuchtodo 12y ago
What about transferring the site's hosting and its ownership to a US entity?
scottshea 12y ago
What?! Canada does not have to follow US laws? I am sure there are some whackdoodle-nutjobs in the US government working on changing this somehow.
- StuntPope 12y ago
  Indeed there are! In fact we're in the midst of another minor tiff over just that issue right now http://blog.easydns.org/2014/08/15/heres-why-we-took-down-a-pharmacy-domain-without-a-court-order/ http://blog.easydns.org/2014/08/15/heres-why-we-took-down-a-...

ferrisford 12y ago

In the first paragraph of the post "he claimed the page ... contained defamatory material" so this isn't the normal cut and dry copyright infringement notice. I'm sure they know how safe harbor works.

petercooper 12y ago

You probably know more about DMCA than me, but I thought it was just about copyright infringement? The post claims the guy who complained in this case was complaining about "defamatory material".

devicenull 12y ago
It is just about copyright infringement (and some other types of IP). Hence the name: Digital Millennium Copyright Act
- petercooper 12y ago
  You never know with American laws. They seem to have a funny way of cramming in totally irrelevant nonsense into bills as a way of getting unpopular items into law.

StuntPope 12y ago

Also - DMCA (AFAIK) is copyright infringement. This suit alleges defamation.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

trhway 12y ago

Having Safe Harbor option doesn't mean that one have to use it as the one may just happen to decide to take a stand against the things s/he doesn't like.

paulgb 12y ago
I'm surprised to find this reply at the bottom, as it's the most important point here (besides lack of jurisdiction): the DMCA doesn't require anything from ISPs, it grants them immunity if they follow the procedure. They're allowed to ignore a takedown, they are just liable.