3 ms·
Does this somehow conflict with the DCMA safe harbor provisions? I thought the deal was that they weren't responsible for the things done on their network as lo
by 0x5f3759df-i 12y ago
Does this somehow conflict with the DCMA safe harbor provisions? I thought the deal was that they weren't responsible for the things done on their network as long as they don't know about it.
- rhino369 12y agoYou'd be hardpressed to claim that having information in a database mean they knew about it. That is sort of the whole point. That Youtube video that is copyrighted is in the Yahoo server. But Youtube doesn't know about it.
- pdkl95 12y agoForget the DMCA - someone should mention to the fundies that the it's time to for another round of Obscenity lawsuits. If the ISP wants to volunteer that they have enough information to filter[1] for "obscene"[2] pages, then they can have the liability as well, or at lest the "fun" of having to defend against fundies wielding banhammers. [1] the fact that a perfect filter is impossible isn't relevant - it just has to be good enough to catch "enough" to allow a parent to think they have "protected" their kid from the scary things on the internet. [2] Finding things on the internet that would qualify ss "obscene" is trivial, especially if someone were to get creative in how they apoply Miller Test style "community standards".