Beware: a very bad precedent set

[jbates at brightok.net (Jack Bates)]

nanog at wbsconnect.com wrote:
> Any and all nefarious activity alleged in this lawsuit was conducted by a customer, of a customer, of a customer yet the hosting provider was found liable, not the actual criminal manufacturing and selling the fakes.
> 
> We had all better watch our backs since it seems that claims of not being able to inspected tens of millions of packets per second is no longer a viable excuse.
> 

Hmmm. I thought DMCA made it quite clear that a service provider cannot 
ignore reports.

"The Akanoc Defendants? specific business model of providing unmanaged 
server capacity to web hosting resellers does not exempt them from 
taking active steps to effectively prevent infringing activity upon 
notification from an intellectual property rights owner. "

I consider that the more important statement in the article. The "upon 
notification" being the largest issue. Don't know if DMCA covers 
anything outside the scope of copyright, but I think it's been generally 
accepted that ignoring reports of infringement can bring about liability.


Jack