The category of civil liability for which the compliance with the DMCA notice and takedown rules offers a safe harbor, first of all, doesn’t overlap with the conduct which constitutes criminal infringement but, more importantly, even if it did the DMCA safe harbor only applies to civil and not criminal liability in the first place.
“Following the DMCA” is irrelevant to anything the FBI would be involved in.
The DMCA absolutely applies. If you follow it, which includes no induction or willfull infrigment, you never rise out of civil liability to criminal. The FBI gets involved once you're past that.
This is not true. The DMCA’s “safe harbor” provisions do not provide any sort of bulwark against criminal prosecution. Only against civil liability and injunctive relief.
Because the DMCA’s safe-harbor provisions only apply to sites that adhere to its requirements. Sites whose primary purpose is to host torrent files or infohashes arguably don’t qualify.
If the DMCA allowed US operators to host torrent catalogs openly, there’d be a plethora of them.
The US does allow it. No one has tried it without trying to induce cipyright infrigment or following the DMCA properly.
Also its hard and extremely expensive to defend yourself to prove it in a niche specifically where people are looking not to pay making it harder to montize to defend properly.
The category of civil liability for which the compliance with the DMCA notice and takedown rules offers a safe harbor, first of all, doesn’t overlap with the conduct which constitutes criminal infringement but, more importantly, even if it did the DMCA safe harbor only applies to civil and not criminal liability in the first place.
“Following the DMCA” is irrelevant to anything the FBI would be involved in.
The DMCA absolutely applies. If you follow it, which includes no induction or willfull infrigment, you never rise out of civil liability to criminal. The FBI gets involved once you're past that.
This is not true. The DMCA’s “safe harbor” provisions do not provide any sort of bulwark against criminal prosecution. Only against civil liability and injunctive relief.
1 reply →
Because the DMCA’s safe-harbor provisions only apply to sites that adhere to its requirements. Sites whose primary purpose is to host torrent files or infohashes arguably don’t qualify.
If the DMCA allowed US operators to host torrent catalogs openly, there’d be a plethora of them.
The US does allow it. No one has tried it without trying to induce cipyright infrigment or following the DMCA properly.
Also its hard and extremely expensive to defend yourself to prove it in a niche specifically where people are looking not to pay making it harder to montize to defend properly.
> No one has tried it without trying to induce cipyright [sic] infrigment or following the DMCA properly.
Why do you think that is?
3 replies →