Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Billy
You are incorrect gideon and need to read the story more closely.
The destruction of evidence and the refusal to cooperate are completely separate from the safe harbor issue.
When they tried to say that they were operating under the safe harbor position the judge on the case laughed them out of the courtroom. He felt that the manner in which they operated the site on a daily basis would not have come close to qualifying for safe harbor protection.
So now they got slammed for all the copyright violations.
Added to that were the penalties for their destruction of evidence and apparent unwillingness to cooperate when they were required to.
Not good behavior at all.
|
Safe harbor defense was disallowed
after a repeated pattern of evidence spoliation and stonewalling from Usenet.com.
granted it looks like they did a lot more than that, but if they had turned over the evidence and the RIAA had failed to find the proof they need, they could have used the safe harbor provision. Instead the accusation were considered to be true.
Anyway, the actions that were discussed were not covered by the safe harbor provision, being personally involved setting up servers specifically to host files are actions outside the scope of the safe harbor provision. This case didn't weaken safe harbor it is just as strong as it was before the case.