Masataka,
You’re incorrect about the DMCA when you say “DMCA treats ‘linking’ to illegal
contents as illegal as the contents themselves”. You must knowingly link to
works that clearly infringe somebody’s copyright. A link to the Israel.TV
websites themselves is not to a specific work, so it’s not covered by DMCA. So
first, as long as you don’t know that a work is infringing someone’s copyright,
then you cannot be held liable for contributor infringement for directing users
to that work. But, over and above that requirement, a link that doesn’t go
directly to a specific work, but just a website in general (as the judgement
declares “shall block access to the website”) is completely out of the bounds
of DMCA.
Nevertheless, this is still a court order, and presumably carries the full
force of the court despite its ridiculous nature. It has the potential to force
innocent parties to spend a ton of money defending themselves against red
herrings and straw men.
-mel via cell
On May 8, 2022, at 8:22 AM, Masataka Ohta <mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
wrote:
Mel Beckman wrote:
But the phrase "or linking to the domain" Includes hundreds, possibly
thousands, of unwitting certain parties:
DMCA treats "linking" to illegal contents as illegal as the
contents themselves, which is why I wrote:
: In addition, it seems to me that name server operators "having
: actual knowledge" that some domain names are used for copyright
: infringements are not be protected by DMCA.
> I think I am simply right.
So, you know nothing about DMCA. Read it.
> The lawsuit is contradictory and overreaching.
As for transit ISPs enjoying a safe harbor of DMCA, yes, as I
already said so.
Masataka Ohta
