Timeline for answer to DMCA: How can ISP ever avoid liability, ISP always gets financial benefit from user content infringement by pboss3010
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
Post Revisions
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 2, 2019 at 21:57 | comment | added | Sabotender | could you post direct link to the exact wording in law or previous supreme court ruling which interpreted that advertising revenue is allowed legally? That would be a good answer to post for this question, until new supreme court case arise in the future. | |
| Feb 2, 2019 at 1:36 | comment | added | ohwilleke | @Sabotender "Google already made big ads revenue, which is the main business model of the website. That is completely a direct benefit out of it. With full purpose and intention of Google." The DMCA is basically a legislative compromise between copyright owners and ISPs that accepts that this can happen and provide a profit for ISPs as a price that has to be paid for having a workable real time copyright law enforcement mechanism, instead of having to wait many days for court hearings. The ability of ISPs to make a profit briefly on this was an understood and accepted part of the deal. | |
| Feb 2, 2019 at 1:31 | comment | added | ohwilleke | @Sabotender The broad reading of the DMCA that you are suggesting is not how the law has been interpreted. Typically, if a site follows the DMCA takedown procedure for user provided content they have been found to be immune from liability in case after case. There are regular reports on the outcomes of these cases, for example, at blog.ericgoldman.org Under the DMCA, as it's been interpreted, there needs to be financial benefit to the host from the copyrighted work beyond the fee charged for hosting the content and ad $$ (e.g. if there's a royalty based on the customer's profits). | |
| Feb 2, 2019 at 1:10 | comment | added | Sabotender | I think the key for this is DMCA does not specify indirect or direct benefit of ISP. So lawyers can always say that ISP gained "a benefit". Also most of shady file hosting sites their main purpose is obviously make money from illegal content in a short time until reported. When someone upload a popular illegal content on youtube, gets 1 million view in a day then deleted by google. Google already made big ads revenue, which is the main business model of the website. That is completely a direct benefit out of it. With full purpose and intention of Google. | |
| Jan 31, 2019 at 14:38 | history | answered | pboss3010 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |