Was DMCA ignore hosts allowed here?

jackb

@randvegeta said:
Here is an example of why a DMCA Copyright Infringement notification is not the same thing as being notified of copyright infringement. It is generally accepted that in the US, linking to copyright material is not really allowed, and the procedures to remove links from websites uses the same process. But in HK, linking is definitely not considered copyright infringement. But DMCA notice will be the same either way. So receiving a DMCA notification is not the same thing as being notified as a crime.

The DMCA is the notification. If linking to infringing content is a breach of the DC's country EUCD implementation, you are now aware of the infringement and are liable if you do not take appropriate action.

If linking isn't illegal in the jurisdiction the DC is in, then it isn't infringement and you don't have to do anything* (* the jurisdiction your business is in may require you to comply with their rules in this case - so you might have to do something). Make sense?

Tl;dr treat DMCA as notification under EUCD but continue to abide by the correct rules and regulations for the jurisdiction the DC is in. You don't have to bend over and apply US laws in the EU - but you do have to respect the EU ones and there is nothing to say that DMCA reports are invalid in EUCD.

randvegeta

jackb said: The DMCA is the notification. If linking to infringing content is a breach of the DC's country EUCD implementation, you are now aware of the infringement and are liable if you do not take appropriate action.

As far as I remember, linking is only 'illegal' if done for profit. So it's not so clear cut, even in the EU.

And as mentioned, you cannot just assume the DMCA constitutes valid notification of a crime. A host can reasonably reject and ignore it if it's not in their own language. As I said, if a host in the US or UK starts receiving abuse reports in Chinese, French, Albanian or any other language, then it's not unreasonable for those hosts to not have a clue what they are about, and simply ignore it. The mere receipt of a DMCA take down notice is not the same as actually being notified of abuse.

The scope of DMCA is different to other copyright laws, and so depending on the nature of the report, it may be ignored. This is the main point. It all depends on the particulars of the report.

jackb

@randvegeta said:

jackb said: The DMCA is the notification. If linking to infringing content is a breach of the DC's country EUCD implementation, you are now aware of the infringement and are liable if you do not take appropriate action.

As far as I remember, linking is only 'illegal' if done for profit. So it's not so clear cut, even in the EU.

And as mentioned, you cannot just assume the DMCA constitutes valid notification of a crime. A host can reasonably reject and ignore it if it's not in their own language. As I said, if a host in the US or UK starts receiving abuse reports in Chinese, French, Albanian or any other language, then it's not unreasonable for those hosts to not have a clue what they are about, and simply ignore it. The mere receipt of a DMCA take down notice is not the same as actually being notified of abuse.

The scope of DMCA is different to other copyright laws, and so depending on the nature of the report, it may be ignored. This is the main point. It all depends on the particulars of the report.

Ok - please let us all know what content is missing from your typical DMCA notice (in English, IP involved, infringing content name, infringing content location, date/time stamp, sworn statement that the sender is authorised to act on behalf of the copyright owner) that makes it invalid as a notification under EUCD?

We could clearly all learn from your expertise.

Point being - the majority of DMCA reports are valid as notifications of infringement under EUCD. What you do with that depends on the jurisdiction of the DC. To suggest DMCA reports can be ignored in the EU is misinformation.

randvegeta

jackb said: k - please let us all know what content is missing from your typical DMCA notice (in English, IP involved, infringing content name, infringing content location, date/time stamp, sworn statement that the sender is authorised to act on behalf of the copyright owner) that makes it invalid under EUCD?

What is missing is irrelevant because that information is SUPPOSED to be in there. We typically get reports with LOTS of missing information. For example, a web address is provided, but there is no evidence that the address is on one of our servers. For us the most common reports have been for websites that are protected by Cloudflare, and most of the time they do not include an IP address in the report. But that's probably not normal.

jackb said: the majority of DMCA reports are valid as notifications of infringement under EUCD

Is that an opinion or fact? I don't think that is true at all. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't need to prove a negative. You need to prove a positive! My point is that if the report is not in the language of the host, then it's not a valid notification. So maybe it's valid in the UK, but not necessarily anywhere else.

To lose limited liability protection, the host must KNOW that their services are being used to infringe on copyright. If you tell me something in a language I do not understand, I do not KNOW anything about what you told me, and so I can use this as a reasonable excuse.

I have already stated that a host cannot knowingly allow their services to be used for illegal purposes, but the mere receipt of a DMCA notification does not mean the host has been notified of anything if they don't understand the content. Or if the content is missing some relevant information, like IP address.

Now we may not receive typical abuse reports, but I can tell you that the vast majority of reports we receive (of any kind of abuse) is missing some very basic information, or just contains wrong information. But I assume that is atypical.

randvegeta

@Zen said:
A: ABC

B: No, XYZ

C: Rewords ABC

Rewords ABC

B: No, XYZ

A: Reinforces ABC

{ personal insults and attacks for 24 hours }

E: Rewords ABC

B: No, XYZ

I can't be arsed to reply again after this. From your posts I think the biggest issue of difference is the degree of notification upon which you feel informed enough to follow through with the EU directive.

If I receive a legitimate DMCA in the EU, as a host, I consider myself notified of illegal activity, which means I am liable to act via the EU directive. We aren't here to talk about the ridiculously small amount of hosts that can't speak English at all, and I cannot imagine arguing that the notification wasn't received in your native language would hold up in court, if the court can prove you understand English sufficiently, and find a precedent use of it in your business in even the slightest way.

Your opinion is that the DMCA does not serve as notification, I disagree because that is it's entire purpose, to properly notify a host entity about about infringement of some kind, by providing information that the host entity cares about (time, IP/ports, content titles). If the notice was nothing more than the title of some infringing content, it wouldn't be enough, but since a proper notice literally pinpoints the exact customer on your network, that is enough for me to spend 30 seconds investigating the legitimacy and consider this a valid notification, therefor following through with the EU directive.

We are not discussing edge cases, we are discussing general rule of thumb. General rule of thumb: DMCA serves as notification for EU directive, use common sense to dictate your actions after that point (is the information valid, is there enough information?).

I did not disagree with any of this.

lazyt

If it's a properly filled out notice. Most of the ones I've seen are either incomplete or totally wrong.

doghouch

@randvegeta said:

@Clouvider said:
Just stop tagging me already.

Stop trolling me. And have some respect for the laws and languages of other countries an cultures.

You may think that DMCA is world law, and English must be spoken by all, but advocating oppression is just wrong. Violence is never the answer.

What are you going on about...?

Edit: never mind. I posted this an hour after the tab opened ._.

WSS

#dicks

quick

@randvegeta
@Clouvider

randvegeta

@quick said:
@randvegeta
@Clouvider

You summoned me?

MasonR

Alright LowEndLawyers, I'm closing this one down as it has run its course.

I don't think an answer has been given to the original question asked by the OP and it rightfully deserves an answer, so I'll consult with the team and update this post with what's decided.