Despite being 99% illicit content, could somebody explain why this is not a case for Safe Harbour? Is this principle enshrined in any law at all, or is it just some neutrality idyll that we assume others share?
*Thought it was part of the DMCA
*Thought it was part of the DMCA
In other words, though you don't have an active duty to police your site, if you do become aware, and don't take action, you're not protected. Similarly, if you set up something with the sole purpose of distributing copyrighted material, and try to hide behind a "gosh, we never knew that kind of thing was going on until you told us", you're probably not going to get a court to believe you.
>Once this notice is completed we are left with an impossible task of policing our indexing bots. Even then it won't stop there, there will be follow-up notices etc.
This seems to me like they're being told to actively police automatically-indexed content after this notice is processed?
I'm not sure how provable that 'knowledge of infringement' clause is.
They have allegedly shut the site down because they lack the resources to handle the growing tide of takedown requests.