|
Let me see if I can clearly explain why a company like CCBill cannot act until they are notified.
The DMCA provides service providers a safe harbor from liability IF they act expeditiously when notified of infringement (A DMCA letter).
Failure to act when properly notifed exposes a company like CCBill to the same liability as the direct infringer.
Now, here is the problem:
CCBill processes for tens of thousands of sites, some of which I am certain deal in stolen content.
If CCBill were to cease processing on sites that they THINK, or BELIEVE are dealing in stolen content WITHOUT being notified by the rights holder, they would then assume the liability for ALL sites that they process for.
So in otherwords, site A, B, and C are all dealing in stolen content. CCBill, acting on a hunch, or a belief, cancels processing for sites A and B (without ever receiving a DMCA notice from the rights holder of the content).
They miss site C, also dealing in stolen content, and continue processing.
They have now assumed the liability for the infringing activity of site C.
The argument would be made, hey..you nixed A and B, but you continued to process for C. You believed that A and B were dealing in stolen content, well you should have believed site C was also.
Pay up.
That is why the DMCA notice was provided for in the DMCA. That is why companies like CCBill, eBay, etc CANNOT act in advance without proper notification, but MUST and do act upon proper notification.
It is all about liability.
Hope that clears things up.
|