You designate an “agent” within your company. I typical register the CEO, operations, or someone like that that as the agent. You would have no issue registering yourself as the agent. I would recommend you create a copyright@ e-mail address and use that as the designated e-mail contact. That way you know a request to copyright@ is most likely someone following protocol.
It’s like CALEA. Their just needs to be the proper person on file to contact, and server due process should it come to that. Justin Wilson j...@mtin.net --- http://www.mtin.net Owner/CEO xISP Solutions- Consulting – Data Centers - Bandwidth http://www.midwest-ix.com COO/Chairman > On Feb 2, 2016, at 3:27 PM, Jeremy <jeremysmi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I really have no idea about that. So I need to hire an agent, and then > ignore all but the requests that come to me from that agent? > > On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 11:59 AM, Justin Wilson <li...@mtin.net > <mailto:li...@mtin.net>> wrote: > The biggest thing I use in a determination is did they send it to the > Registered Copyright Agent on file? You do have one correct? :-) > http://copyright.gov/onlinesp/ <http://copyright.gov/onlinesp/> > > If you have one, and it’s not sent to that agent, it’s not a real request > IMHO. > > > Justin Wilson > j...@mtin.net <mailto:j...@mtin.net> > > --- > http://www.mtin.net <http://www.mtin.net/> Owner/CEO > xISP Solutions- Consulting – Data Centers - Bandwidth > > http://www.midwest-ix.com <http://www.midwest-ix.com/> COO/Chairman > >> On Feb 2, 2016, at 1:34 PM, Josh Reynolds <j...@kyneticwifi.com >> <mailto:j...@kyneticwifi.com>> wrote: >> >> It can't charge the copyright holder, but could it charge to company >> sending out the notices if they aren't the CRH? :) >> >> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Keefe John <keefe...@ethoplex.com >> <mailto:keefe...@ethoplex.com>> wrote: >>> This has been discussed before, the DMCA safe harbor doesn't allow the >>> provider to charge the copyright holder for this. >>> >>> On 2/2/2016 12:03 PM, Josh Reynolds wrote: >>>> >>>> That's going to end up in a big mess of a lawsuit eventually. >>>> >>>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Sterling Jacobson <sterl...@avative.net >>>> <mailto:sterl...@avative.net>> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Haha! >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> If it’s against your AUP, make sure you have a clause in there that says >>>>> you >>>>> charge per incident. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Then go ahead and charge the customer. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sounds like if you are just going to kick them off eventually, might as >>>>> well >>>>> try to keep them, but make it costly. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> If they don’t pay it, then they are off. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Nothing legally wrong with it if its in your policy I think. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com <mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com>] On >>>>> Behalf Of That One Guy /sarcasm >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 2, 2016 10:57 AM >>>>> To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com> >>>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] DMCA Time Management Fee >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Oh wow, youre seriously looking for a fight with customers >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Jeremy <jeremysmi...@gmail.com >>>>> <mailto:jeremysmi...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> What do you thing about charging a fee every time that a customer gets a >>>>> DMCA takedown notice. These notices take time to track down and follow >>>>> up >>>>> on. If we charged $20 every time it would make it not really worth it to >>>>> pirate that $10 movie. I would think that it should be legal, so long as >>>>> we >>>>> add it to our customer agreement. Anyone ever thought about this? Right >>>>> now we pass on 5 of them and then make them find a new provider. It >>>>> seems >>>>> like they would be less likely to hit 5 if they had to pay $20 for each >>>>> one. >>>>> We really don't want these guys on our network anyway, so no sweat if >>>>> they >>>>> just cancel. Is anyone out there charging customers a fee for these? I >>>>> know most of you just ignore them, but we like passing them on, as it >>>>> lowers >>>>> our overall usage. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team >>>>> as >>>>> part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. >>> >>> >> > >
