Path: rambo.bobo.net!xs4all!xs4all!newsgate.cistron.nl!het.net!newspump.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!newshub.northeast.verio.net!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!newsfeed.concentric.net!207.155.183.80.MISMATCH!global-news-master From: inFormer@informer.org (Rev Dennis Erlich) Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: Re: MoFo Lawyer covers Digital Millennium Act Date: 18 Nov 1998 18:32:31 PST Organization: inFormer Ministry [a 501(c)3 non-profit, religious organization] "... in service of cult victims and their families." Lines: 76 Message-ID: <365582bc.19567893@news.concentric.net> References: <366d4751.154956766@localhost> <3689585e.18470666@news.snafu.de> Reply-To: informer@informer.org NNTP-Posting-Host: ts030d09.lax-ca.concentric.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 X-No-Archive: yes Xref: rambo.bobo.net alt.religion.scientology:145727 tilman@berlin.snafu.de (Tilman Hausherr): >In <366d4751.154956766@localhost>, xenu@mindspring.com (Rob Clark) >wrote: > >>[I quote the first paragraph of this for flavor. The whole article is at >>http://arl.cni.org/info/frn/copy/band.html > >Here an important part for clam critics: > > >"No Need to Monitor or Access. The Act makes clear that in order to >qualify for the exemptions, an OSP does not need to monitor its service >or affirmatively seek out information about copyright infringement on >its service (except as part of the standard technical measures discussed >in the previous paragraph). In addition, the Act states that an OSP does >not have to access, remove, or block material in order to qualify for >its exemptions if such action is prohibited by law (such as, for >example, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act)." > > > >another good one: > >"Notice and Take-Down Provisions > >... > >Form and Content of Notice. A notice from a copyright owner must be in >writing [If it isn't written, it isn't true !!!!!!] and must be signed >by such copyright owner or his or her agent and must include certain >specified information, including an identification of the allegedly >infringing material and information reasonably sufficient for the OSP to >locate the material or the reference or link to it. If the OSP receives >a notice that substantially complies with the Act's requirements, then >the OSP must act expeditiously to remove or block access to the material >that is alleged to be infringing in order to remain eligible for the >exemption from liability. " > >This is important because the clams are often unable to prove their >allegations. (I.e. they lie) > >"Misrepresentations. The Act provides that anyone who knowingly >materially misrepresents under the Act that material is infringing is >liable for any damages incurred by an OSP or a User as a result of the >OSP relying on such misrepresentation in removing or blocking material." > > >Another good part is "Notice and Putback". The best is this: > >"If the counter notification complies with the statutory requirements, >then the OSP, to remain exempt from liability for the "take down", must >provide a copy of the counter notification to the copyright owner that >sent the original notice." > >So it means the ISP *must* send the "response" of the user back to the >'ho. > >And: > >"(4) Unless such copyright owner then notifies the OSP that the owner >has filed a court action seeking to restrain the alleged infringement, >the OSP must replace or unblock the material within 10 to 14 business >days of receiving the counter notification." > >So basically the 'ho *must* sue or the material will be put back! > > >Is seems the DMCA is not *that* bad. Users who "fair use" can now say >"so sue me" and mean it :-) This bit you've quoted is some dynamite legislation! Rev Dennis Erlich * * the inFormer * *