We are being sued for refusing to take down a website

Re:We are being sued for refusing to take down a website by netik on Friday August 22, 2014 @05:54PM (#8214139)

Do you and your lawyers not know how DMCA Safe Harbor Provisions work?

Time to read up on it, especially this part: https://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/faq.cgi#QID130

And: https://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/faq.cgi#QID922

You must notify the user and give them the opportunity to file a counter-notice against the complaint. Safe Harbor protects you from this kind of lawsuit.

Also forward a copy of the complainant's letter to chilling effects.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We are being sued for refusing to take down a website by StuntPope on Friday August 22, 2014 @06:11PM (#8214189)

Greetings from a place called Canada. Different laws up here. It's not so cut and dry (we've already checked this with our attorneys). That said, we'll defend vigorously.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We are being sued for refusing to take down a website by fleitz on Friday August 22, 2014 @06:45PM (#8214286)

Yes, it's amazing how US law does not apply here.

I frequently have to remind my fellow citizens that it makes little sense to plead the 5th here, because whether parliament has sat in the last year will not effect the outcome of your trial.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We are being sued for refusing to take down a website by cperciva on Friday August 22, 2014 @07:05PM (#8214342)

it makes little sense to plead the 5th here, because whether parliament has sat in the last year will not effect the outcome of your trial

Ah, but you're looking at Section 5 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and when people say "plead the fifth" they're talking about the fifth amendment to the constitution.

Of course, we don't number our constitutional amendments; but if you look at them in chronological order, I believe the fifth would be the Statute Law Revision Act, 1893, which... well, actually it did nothing at all except to repeal sections of the British North America Act which no longer had any effect.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We are being sued for refusing to take down a website by fleitz on Friday August 22, 2014 @07:43PM (#8214444)

touche.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We are being sued for refusing to take down a website by graeme on Friday August 22, 2014 @06:59PM (#8214329)

Countries that don't have 911 as the emergency number often have to mount campaigns telling people not to dial it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We are being sued for refusing to take down a website by jessaustin on Friday August 22, 2014 @08:10PM (#8214509)

If so, it would seem a simple solution to alias "911" to whatever foolish number their backward attempt at civilization uses.

b^)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We are being sued for refusing to take down a website by owenmarshall on Friday August 22, 2014 @09:43PM (#8214730)

The GSM standard mandates that 911, 112, and 999 (I believe...) be routed as emergency calls when dialed on a GSM cell phone.

I think some phones go farther and include 000, 118, and other lesser-used emergency numbers as well.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We are being sued for refusing to take down a website by Zuider on Friday August 22, 2014 @09:07PM (#8214650)

Nein, nein, nein!

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We are being sued for refusing to take down a website by scottshea on Friday August 22, 2014 @07:46PM (#8214452)

What?! Canada does not have to follow US laws? I am sure there are some whackdoodle-nutjobs in the US government working on changing this somehow.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We are being sued for refusing to take down a website by StuntPope on Friday August 22, 2014 @11:16PM (#8214880)

Indeed there are! In fact we're in the midst of another minor tiff over just that issue right now

http://blog.easydns.org/2014/08/15/heres-why-we-took-down-a-...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We are being sued for refusing to take down a website by toomuchtodo on Friday August 22, 2014 @07:02PM (#8214333)

What about transferring the site's hosting and its ownership to a US entity?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We are being sued for refusing to take down a website by petercooper on Friday August 22, 2014 @06:13PM (#8214194)

You probably know more about DMCA than me, but I thought it was just about copyright infringement? The post claims the guy who complained in this case was complaining about "defamatory material".

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We are being sued for refusing to take down a website by devicenull on Friday August 22, 2014 @06:38PM (#8214262)

It is just about copyright infringement (and some other types of IP). Hence the name: Digital Millennium Copyright Act

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We are being sued for refusing to take down a website by petercooper on Saturday August 23, 2014 @04:38AM (#8215329)

You never know with American laws. They seem to have a funny way of cramming in totally irrelevant nonsense into bills as a way of getting unpopular items into law.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We are being sued for refusing to take down a website by ferrisford on Friday August 22, 2014 @06:11PM (#8214190)

In the first paragraph of the post "he claimed the page ... contained defamatory material" so this isn't the normal cut and dry copyright infringement notice. I'm sure they know how safe harbor works.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We are being sued for refusing to take down a website by StuntPope on Friday August 22, 2014 @06:13PM (#8214196)

Also - DMCA (AFAIK) is copyright infringement. This suit alleges defamation.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We are being sued for refusing to take down a website by trhway on Friday August 22, 2014 @06:21PM (#8214221)

Having Safe Harbor option doesn't mean that one have to use it as the one may just happen to decide to take a stand against the things s/he doesn't like.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We are being sued for refusing to take down a website by paulgb on Friday August 22, 2014 @07:20PM (#8214377)

I'm surprised to find this reply at the bottom, as it's the most important point here (besides lack of jurisdiction): the DMCA doesn't require anything from ISPs, it grants them immunity if they follow the procedure. They're allowed to ignore a takedown, they are just liable.

[ Parent | on HN ]