The 6 strikes system doesn't kick in til Jan 2013 AFAIK. Does the legal letter make any kind of demand? Usually the sender (aka copyright troll - a technical term) will be looking for personal info to associate with the IP in order to institute a shakedown of some nature. IANAL but I believe one can wait for a subpoena, and even then it's not open and closed.
j On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. <amitch...@isipp.com > wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 6:16 AM, groupstudytac groupstudytac > > <groupstudy...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I get copyright notices from companies like Irdeto , saying that one of > my > >> customers IP is downloading unauthorized material using bittorent. I > also > >> have processes in place to handle such notices . > >> > >> Can anyone share how he handles such notices in his ISP environment , i > am > >> ready to adapt some valid steps to improve the existing process. > >> > >> Or should i just ignore such messages ? > > > > If you're in the U.S., the process for handling these notices is > > prescribed by law, specifically the Digital Millennium Copyright Act > > (search: DMCA takedown notice). It details what the infringement > > notice must include in order to be actionable and what steps the ISP > > must take on receipt of an actionable notice. It also prescribes > > procedures for the alleged infringer to object and for the ISP to > > restore the material following an objection. > > > > Follow the procedures described in the law to retain your immunity as > > an ISP. Consult a local lawyer if you don't find them sufficiently > > obvious. > > The thing that muddies this is that, as I understand it, the notice was > not for takedown (i.e. there is not an allegation that they are *hosting* > infringing material) - it is a notice that one of their users *downloaded* > copyrighted material (IP, do I have that right?) > > This is part of the RIAA's "graduated response" program, to which several > major ISPs, including AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast, have agreed. > > Basically, the accuser contacts the ISP, and the ISP sends a warning (a > "copyright alert") to their user (without giving up the user to the > accuser). > > If the same user is accused subsequently, they get another, sterner > warning. In total there is a series of six warnings, with "mitigation > measures" accompanying the fifth and sixth warning. > > If I were counseling an ISP - whether one that was part of the agreement, > or not - I would say that the first order is to *put your policy around > copyright alerts in writing* - asap - and make it as specific as possible - > and then *ALWAYS FOLLOW IT EVERY SINGLE TIME*. > > It almost (I say almost) doesn't matter what the policy is so long as it's > reasonable, but it matters that it be followed to the letter every time, no > exceptions. > > And, if you are an ISP that isn't part of the agreement with the RIAA, > it's still not a bad idea to structure your policy to follow the six > "copyright alert" structure, because there is some precedent there, and > then you come off looking like you are trying to do the right thing, which > will make you a less easy target. > > These two articles give a pretty good explanation of the deal: > > > https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/03/graduated-response-deal-steamrollers-towards-july-1-launch > > > http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/07/major-isps-agree-to-six-strikes-copyright-enforcement-plan/ > > Anne > > Anne P. Mitchell, Esq > CEO/President > Institute for Social Internet Public Policy > http://www.ISIPP.com > Member, Cal. Bar Cyberspace Law Committee > ISIPP Email Accreditation: http://www.SuretyMail.com > > > -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- -
