What does it do? If it fails to shut down the website, will courts conclude that it had "knowledge" on the infringing action? But if just begins shuttering web sites based mostly on complaints from rightsholder, it finds itself while in the very situation the DMCA was developed to shield it from.
Update: As several readers point out, the query of "knowing about infringement" is one that the DMCA's counternotice provision was made to addressISPs should act on takedown notices, however the targets of these notices can object, at which stage the ISP can put the website back up and has done its duty. Further action have to take in place in court, and have to be directly between the rightsholder and also the internet site. Apologies for inadvertently leaving this off the finish on the post.
The point that I was making an attempt to generate concerned the details of how this works in practice. As we have noticed several occasions with items like YouTube video clips, the DMCA takedown provisions can be utilized to shut up a dissenting voice, even when it's only to get a quick time period and also if there is no intention of pursuing a declare in court. If completed in negative faith, this really is illegal, nonetheless it generates number of instances except if a group like the EFF gets concerned.
The challenge is only magnified when enterprise sites as an alternative to YouTube movies are affected, and it truly is 1 explanation that some other nations have adopted a "notice and notice" method (the ISP passes the infringement recognize along towards the target) as opposed to a "notice and takedown" provision.