Re:Reimbursement of Exit Operators
by sbierwagen on Tuesday September 17, 2013 @04:14PM
(#6401636)
I ran an exit node on a mostly unused dedicated server for a while. I made the mistake of not limiting traffic to ports 80 and 443, and got a couple DMCA takedowns as a result of people torrenting stuff over tor, which caused the provider to cancel my contract. (I got all my files off first)
[ Parent
| on HN ]
It's really bad when out of all the reasons governments can shut down Tor nodes, it's DMCA's that do it. If DMCA's really have that much power, then their reform is long overdue.
The takedown system is one of the very few good parts of the DMCA. Without it, content owners could sue the host (like YouTube) instead of having to go after the uploader. As long as the host takes down the content, they are basically immune to copyright prosecution.
As far as I can tell, you are not "required" to take down content when you get a DMCA notice. Refusing it just makes you liable for the content under the rest of copyright law.
Re:Reimbursement of Exit Operators
by Dylan16807 on Tuesday September 17, 2013 @05:47PM
(#6402144)
It's better than nothing, but it's severely flawed. There is zero disincentive for filing false claims.
While it could certainly be improved, it does explicitly make false filers liable for damages. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_L...
Re:Reimbursement of Exit Operators
by Dylan16807 on Tuesday September 17, 2013 @06:44PM
(#6402416)
It makes knowingly false claimers liable. Massive systematic negligence has zero punishment.