News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:India Orders 32 Websites Blocked, Including GitHub, Archi... by TylerE on Wednesday December 31, 2014 @02:25PM (#8820693)
That may not be in your best interest, lefally. Pro-active moderation makes it very hard to argue safe harbor status.
Re:India Orders 32 Websites Blocked, Including GitHub, Archi... by adventured on Wednesday December 31, 2014 @03:04PM (#8820851)
Not true. If you're alerted to offending material and you remove it, you haven't broken safe harbor status what-so-ever. Otherwise YouTube, DropBox, Instagram and countless other sites would be dead.

The only way you break safe harbor is if you know of offending material, eg by a filter or having been alerted to it, and leave that material in place. If you run content filters (such as at the point of upload), then you have to be more careful.

The difference being between after-the-fact moderation and pre-screening. If you pre-screen you take on a greater burden of risk, in terms of copyright holders being able to argue you knew about something and didn't remove it, or should have known.

Re:India Orders 32 Websites Blocked, Including GitHub, Archi... by Vivtek on Thursday January 01, 2015 @01:53PM (#8823777)
Being alerted to offending material is not proactive screening.
Re:India Orders 32 Websites Blocked, Including GitHub, Archi... by jacquesm on Wednesday December 31, 2014 @03:59PM (#8821055)
It's not pro-active, it is reactive. He explicitly states he's not doing pro-active removals.
Re:India Orders 32 Websites Blocked, Including GitHub, Archi... by chris_wot on Wednesday December 31, 2014 @09:27PM (#8821939)
His contact info for copyright requests is not prominent on his website, at least not that I can see.
Re:India Orders 32 Websites Blocked, Including GitHub, Archi... by nullc on Wednesday December 31, 2014 @08:14PM (#8821813)
It absolutely does not.

The safe harbors provided by S512 and S230 are absolute and are not impeded by proactive (or reactive) administration. This is part of their reason for their existence.

Re:India Orders 32 Websites Blocked, Including GitHub, Archi... by oasisbob on Wednesday December 31, 2014 @02:38PM (#8820750)
With regards to DMCA, 512(m) seems applicable.
Re:India Orders 32 Websites Blocked, Including GitHub, Archi... by nicksergeant on Wednesday December 31, 2014 @02:48PM (#8820793)
Applicable how?
Re:India Orders 32 Websites Blocked, Including GitHub, Archi... by chris_wot on Wednesday December 31, 2014 @09:30PM (#8821941)
"(m) Protection of Privacy.— Nothing in this section shall be construed to condition the applicability of subsections (a) through (d) on—

(1) a service provider monitoring its service or affirmatively seeking facts indicating infringing activity, except to the extent consistent with a standard technical measure complying with the provisions of subsection (i); or

(2) a service provider gaining access to, removing, or disabling access to material in cases in which such conduct is prohibited by law."

Dude, you desperately need a designated agent. You just aren't under safe harbor at the moment.

Re:India Orders 32 Websites Blocked, Including GitHub, Archi... by nicksergeant on Wednesday December 31, 2014 @02:27PM (#8820704)
How so?