New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Was DMCA ignore hosts allowed here?
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
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.
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.
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.
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.
I did not disagree with any of this.
If it's a properly filled out notice. Most of the ones I've seen are either incomplete or totally wrong.
What are you going on about...?
Edit: never mind. I posted this an hour after the tab opened ._.
#dicks
@randvegeta
@Clouvider
You summoned me?
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.