AdultPornMasta

Think again.

Even if a search engine does not meet the requirements of the "Safe Harbor" provisions of the DMCA, that search engine is under no obligation to even acknowledge the existence of a DMCA notice.

Doubt me?

Go here and learn:

http://chillingeffects.org/dmca512/faq.cgi#QID564

"Question: What are the criteria a service provider must satisfy in order to qualify for safe harbor protection under Subsection 512(a) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act?

Answer: Subsection 512(a) provides a safe harbor for service providers in regard to communications that do not reside on the service provider."

"Question: What does a service provider have to do in order to qualify for safe harbor protection?

Answer: In addition to informing its customers of its policies (discussed above), a service provider must follow the proper notice and takedown procedures (discussed above) and also meet several other requirements in order to qualify for exemption under the safe harbor provisions.

In order to facilitate the notification process in cases of infringement, ISPs which allow users to store information on their networks, such as a web hosting service, must designate an agent that will receive the notices from copyright owners that its network contains material which infringes their intellectual property rights. The service provider must then notify the Copyright Office of the agent's name and address and make that information publicly available on its web site. [512(c)(2)]

Finally, the service provider must not have knowledge that the material or activity is infringing or of the fact that the infringing material exists on its network. [512(c)(1)(A)], [512(d)(1)(A)]. If it does discover such material before being contacted by the copyright owners, it is instructed to remove, or disable access to, the material itself. [512(c)(1)(A)(iii)], [512(d)(1)(C)]. The service provider must not gain any financial benefit that is attributable to the infringing material. [512(c)(1)(B)], [512(d)(2)]."

And now here are the kickers:

"Question: What is the significance of Section 512(a) of the DMCA to service providers?

Answer: If a service provider falls within the requirements of subsection 512(a), then it will not be liable for monetary, injunctive, or other equitable relief. Specifically, a service provider will not be liable for copyright infringement by reason of (1) the service provider."

"Question: Does a service provider have to follow the safe harbor procedures?

Answer: No. An ISP may choose not to follow the DMCA takedown process, and do without the safe harbor. If it would not be liable under pre-DMCA copyright law (for example, because it is not contributorily or vicariously liable, or because there is no underlying copyright infringement), it can still raise those same defenses if it is sued."

"Question: What is section 512 of the DMCA, and what are its various provisions?

Answer: The On-Line Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act (OCILLA), included as section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), was passed in 1998. It provides Internet Service Providers (ISPs), such as providers of DSL and dial-up Internet access, as well as other Online Service Providers (OSPs), such as search engines, with a safe harbor and protection from liability under the Act."

In other words, you can send all the DMCA notices you want and the search engine can choose to ignore them completely. Essentially, if the search engine itself is not hosting the material, he search engine is exempt from the provisions of the DMCA.

Could it be time for much more aggressive action to be taken against those sites using stolen, pirated or otherwise infringing material?

__________________
"The world is full of obvious things which nobody by any chance ever observes."

AdultKing

Marion Lynn, Sally Rand, failed scammer and spammer. You know NOTHING about anything.

notinmybackyard

If I can give some advice.

The secret is to not loose control of your films and photos. Now if search engines are helping theft then it is time to stop the search engines accessing your site.

__________________
officially retired as of March 01 2018 but still fucking around and getting into shit.

Quentin

The part you appear to have missed I've rendered in bold above -- namely, that if an ISP chooses not to follow the takedown process, that ISP then loses the safe harbor provided to it under the DMCA.

That is just not at all the same thing as being immune from liability with respect to claims brought against you under the DMCA.

If you think that's a trivial matter.... well, nothing I can post here in explanation of why it would be a disaster for an ISP to lose safe harbor will make a lick of difference.

A parting thought for you, courtesy of Alexander Pope:

__________________
Q. Boyer

DamianJ

Yeah, but to be fair, he is a very old man who has a history of dressing up in his Mom's dress, moaning about an itchy clit and getting banned from GFY several times. I don't think he's awfully bright.

MainstreamGuy

AdultPornMasta

I am certain that in your zeal to attack me you missed the real point.

"If it would not be liable under pre-DMCA copyright law (for example, because it is not contributorily or vicariously liable, or because there is no underlying copyright infringement), it can still raise those same defenses if it is sued."

Simply put, if the ISP would not be liable under the old law, it is not liable under the new.

An ISP could be sued but suing takes a ton up front and tell me, you are going to sue Google?

Let me know how that shit works out, Okay?

r.e.: Alexander Pope:

:The version 'a little learning' is widely attributed to Alexander Pope (1688 - 1744). It is found in An Essay on Criticism, 1709, and I can find no earlier example of the expression in print:

"A little learning is a dangerous thing;
drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
and drinking largely sobers us again."

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/a...ous-thing.html

You, my not so friend, need to do more fucking homework!

__________________
"The world is full of obvious things which nobody by any chance ever observes."

brassmonkey

one it hits the net its out there

__________________
TRUMP 2025 KEKAW!!! - The Laken Riley Act Is Law!
DACA ENDED - SUPPORT AZ HCR 2060 52R - email: brassballz-at-techie.com

CyberHustler

AdultPornMasta

Dimwits abound!

I find it amazing that some people are allowed to freely walk around in public while posing a danger to themselves and others.

__________________
"The world is full of obvious things which nobody by any chance ever observes."

Quentin

The key word in the red text there is "if."

My argument would be that constructive knowledge of copyright infringement on pages the search engine links to (knowledge gained by, say, having received the DMCA notices it then chose to ignore?) would create contributory copyright liability under both the DMCA and pre-DCMA copyright law.

I suspect that this is why Google does, in fact, respond to take down notices. Apparently their legal department, the copyright division of which is currently headed up by Fred von Lohmann (who was once a senior staff attorney at the EFF) doesn't entirely share your confidence that Google has no potential liability were it to ignore take-down notices.

As for needing to do more homework, I correctly attributed the phrase I quoted to Pope. As the page you linked to notes:

I already knew the above (my undergraduate degree is in literature, so I've spent plenty of time reading and discussing Pope and Bacon in my time), but thanks for the attempt to educate me.

I have no intention of suing Google... but we have in the past used the same law firm that is handling the Viacom v. Youtube case (Jenner and Block in NYC) to handle one of our cases, so I do have some insight in to what suing a enormous company like Google entails. You're not wrong that it requires a serious war chest, and the willingness to spend a lot of money pursuing your claims -- but that does not translate into such a lawsuit being futile.

Btw, if in your opinion my previous post constituted an "attack" on you, then you have some mighty thin skin.

__________________
Q. Boyer