I got an email today that easydns bought out ZoneEdit, something my company uses. I hadn't heard about them previously and now I read this. I'm glad they bought ZoneEdit, I'm down with a company like this.
If nothing else, it basically just reads like a twitter troll who follows activists around. Not illegal.
Interestingly, also, the website basically talks about this guy constantly threatening and filing lawsuits which he never goes through with, so I would ignore this, but IANAL.
The whole "Cause Pimps" site is fascinating. First it seems like a left-wing site confirming all the right wing's deepest fantastic conspiracy theories about various left wing groups. If one continues reading, however, the writer just can't help dropping the occasional bit that seriously calls into question just how left-wing she really is. Not that this particularly credits or discredits anything else on the site. I'm more of a down-wing person myself.
I can't upvote this submission for some reason... Anyone know why? Its missing the arrows, sort of how HN job posts don't have up/downvote buttons either.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
