Slashdot Mirror
Copyright Legitimacy vs. Defending Clients?
trmj asks: "I run a hosting company, and today I received an e-mail, claiming to be from an animation firm, about one of my clients hosting pirated information. As usual, before entertaining a claim of this sort, I researched the claim (there was a bit of legitimacy in it) and what the laws are governing this issue. After that, I replied in the appropriate manner, however, found that the original e-mail address was not valid, leading to the discovery that neither was the e-mail. As a hosting provider, how far should I go to protect the rights of my clients while upholding the law, and still verify every claim that comes in?"
. . . you score points with me for not just whacking the user, no questions asked, like the major ISPs seem to be doing.
One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
First I would notify your client that (s)he is violating copyright (this takes care of your first problem), state what section of your use policy (you have one right?) (s)he is violating. State what your actions will be, removal, reporting, etc. Before the email you had the coverage of plausible deniability, now you don't (anon tip). In the end save your notice and forget it, if anything comes of it, you can state that you had informed him(her) and they removed it, then replaced it at a later date.
But, IANAL
NarraterDan
"If you're not confused by quantum mechanics, you really don't understand it." - Niels Bohr
Ethical Opinions -
See no evil, hear no evil, your client is accountable for himself.
You are honor bound to protect your defenseless client to the best of your abilities.
Keep him informed of the situation and let him deal with it. That's the extent of your duties.
Harshly warn your client for jeopardizing your business and your credibility. Kick him out if doesn't comply. Protect your livelihood.
Insert coins and ask again.
Legal Opinion -
Ask elsewhere. A LAWYER would be good.
Sorry if this is curt. I just think that if an entire thread can be covered in one post then it should be.
Operator, give me the number for 911!
Any idea what the heck the email writer had in mind? Enemy of your client perhaps? Anyway, perhaps in the future you could save your time with a form reply request "clarification." That would help with authenticity -- if this kind of game is common.
As you know, you are potentially liable for the copyright offenses of your customers, limited by the safe harbor exception I can't recall the details of. Once you've been notified, it may be foolhardy to ignore the wanring, as you could go down with the client. If you're like me, you may personally be kind of offended at people using your wares for criminal enterprises -- e.g., selling pirated songs. It appears the possibly malicious email writer has in fact brought a problem to your attention, and so you can't look the other way. (If they weren't malicious but wanted anonymity, maybe they could have just said so.)
I would strongly suggest you talk to a lawyer on this for legal advice to can rely on, and that you establish a written policy on how inquiries like this email are handled. You will want a paper trail to show your diligence later, and for your own conscience to make sure nothing falls through the cracks. I don't know whether you'll want to discuss the email when you talk to your client, or just use the generic "it has come to our attention that..."
Let us know what you do, OK?
At that point, the site is either hosting copyrighted content, or they're not.
As far as I know, 100% of all content on all websites is copyright. Hell, this post that you're reading right now is copyright.
I really wish that people wouldn't say "hosting copyright content" when they mean unauthorized reproduction of copyright material that exceeds fair use. It really seems that most of the vocabulary we're using for this discussion has been created by people with a vested interest in promoting the idea that only large companies create any content worth the protection of copyright, and that any unauthorized reproduction is illegal. Neither claim is true...
Slashdot is jumping the shark. I'm just driving the boat.
This was my real reply to
anti-piracy@sonymusic.com. They didn't reply back, and nothing happened.
A friend suggested me I could also have replied with a "Sory, me not understaind english". But I thought this reply would be more amusing for them.
A cell phone is, and is intended to be, a radio transmitter and receiver, and it was probably simpler to just extend the existing rules and regulations governing transmitters and receivers instead of writing up a special batch just for cell phones. It has to do with using airwaves (electromagnetic spectrum) that are administered by the FCC acting as stewards for the public, whose property that spectrum is, and with the inescapability that there is no way to guarantee that your transmission might not be picked up by someone other than who you intended and that the unintended receipients are entitled to a reasonable expectation of not being offended over airwaves of which they are just as much the owner as are you. There are also rules about not making use of or passing on to others anything you hear in a transmission of which you weren't the intended receipient.
The classic model of a telephone communication system (a land line)does not involve use of the airwaves or anyone except the intended receipient of the communication being in receipt of the communication, so there's no obligation to unauthorized receipients to respect their tender sensibilities. Of course the fact that telephone wires traverse public lands and could radiate at unacceptable levels if not properly installed and maintained gives various governments a certain amount of leverage over their use.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.