We are being sued for refusing to take down a website(blog.easydns.org)
blog.easydns.org
We are being sued for refusing to take down a website
http://blog.easydns.org/2014/08/22/we-are-being-sued-for-refusing-to-takedown-a-website/
7 comments
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.
This is a wonderful case in point for trying to understand the EFF's examples on internet defamation:
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.
https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/defamation
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.
What exactly is it that I was reading. It's hard to tell.
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.
Are you sure that you haven't already upvoted it?
Fox news said something inflammatory about you? Sue Comcast!
[deleted]
Do you and your lawyers not know how DMCA Safe Harbor Provisions work?
Time to read up on it, especially this part: https://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/faq.cgi#QID130
And: https://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/faq.cgi#QID922
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.
Time to read up on it, especially this part: https://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/faq.cgi#QID130
And: https://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/faq.cgi#QID922
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.
Yes, it's amazing how US law does not apply here.
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.
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.
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.
touche.
Countries that don't have 911 as the emergency number often have to mount campaigns telling people not to dial it.
If so, it would seem a simple solution to alias "911" to whatever foolish number their backward attempt at civilization uses.
b^)
b^)
The GSM standard mandates that 911, 112, and 999 (I believe...) be routed as emergency calls when dialed on a GSM cell phone.
I think some phones go farther and include 000, 118, and other lesser-used emergency numbers as well.
I think some phones go farther and include 000, 118, and other lesser-used emergency numbers as well.
Nein, nein, nein!
What?! Canada does not have to follow US laws? I am sure there are some whackdoodle-nutjobs in the US government working on changing this somehow.
Indeed there are! In fact we're in the midst of another minor tiff over just that issue right now
http://blog.easydns.org/2014/08/15/heres-why-we-took-down-a-...
http://blog.easydns.org/2014/08/15/heres-why-we-took-down-a-...
What about transferring the site's hosting and its ownership to a US entity?
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".
It is just about copyright infringement (and some other types of IP). Hence the name: Digital Millennium Copyright Act
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.
Also - DMCA (AFAIK) is copyright infringement. This suit alleges defamation.
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.
[deleted]