Quote:
Originally Posted by Nautilus
No, to prevent censorship from copyright holders there is counter DMCA. Safe harbor is to prevent ISPs from getting involved in a lawsuite over things they have no direct control over and no direct benefit from.
|
do you understand what you are saying.
How do you get to counter notification if the copyright holder gets sued immediately for a potential infringement.
you can't
before the DMCA the host was not involved in the lawsuit either. If you complained about copyright infringement they would say sorry we are not involved we only provide hosting get a court order and we will remove it.
You couldn't sue until you got proof thru a court order period. They need no protection to avoid being involved.
After the DMCA all you need to do to get the content down was to send a letter period. Refuse to honor that letter and you got the same liability as refusing to honor a court order in the past.
congress knew that if they didn't set a specific counter notification procedure and produce a period of immunity (equal to before the court order was obtained) this new automagic takedown procedure would cause censorship effect. The host is immune so long as they comply to give them BACK the immunity before court order status.
The immunity after counter notification is designed to give the legitimate fair use users the right to keep the doing business after a bogus complaint while they fight out right in court.
it a balancing act between the new rights and the abuse that new right can create. Take out any one piece and the law becomes abusive.