SoylentNews

FakeBeldin [soylentnews.org] writes:

Rightscorp, a copyright enforcement company, won a $17 million verdict against ISP Cox [arstechnica.co.uk]. The reason?
Under the USA's DMCA, there's something called "safe harbor": ISPs have to take action against copyright infringement if they are notified of it. If you're aware, you're required to care. Do that and you're not liable for any copyright infringement perpetrated by those who use your services.

Actions can range up to terminating internet access for copyright infringement. They did for some users of Cox. However, an internal memo reads:

The judge didn't think that "DMCA termination = cut off, give stern talking to, reactivate" was in the spirit of the law. Therefore, he ruled that Cox did not satisfy the requirements of "safe harbor", and thus is liable for the infringements of its users.

[opining away]
Frankly, I have to agree - I might disagree with the law, sure. But where the law writes "termination", it doesn't mean "stern talking to".
I do not have a good definition of "termination" - keeping people permanently off the internet would not be justified in my opinion. But after repeatedly violating laws and being warned about that, and that the next time severe consequences would emerge, a cut until the first phone call is insufficient. Does the DMCA say anything at all about that?
And what do you guys think?

Original Submission