You're referring to the DMCAs safe harbor provision. -brandon On 6/24/09, Steven M. Bellovin <smb@cs.columbia.edu> wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 17:48:58 -0400 Andrew D Kirch <trelane@trelane.net> wrote:
Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 12:43:15PM -0700, Randy Bush wrote:
sadly, naively turning up tor to help folk who wish to be anonymous in hard times gets one a lot of assertive email from self-important people who wear formal clothes.
folk who learn this the hard way may find a pointer passed to me by smb helpful, <http://www.chrisbrunner.com/?p=119>.
If bittorrent of copyrighted material is the most illegal thing you helped facilitate while running tor, and all you got was an assertive e-mail because of it, you should consider yourself extremely lucky.
Anonymity against privacy invasion and for political causes sure sounds like a great concept, but in reality it presents too tempting a target for abuse. If you choose to open up your internet connection to anyone who wants to use it, you should be prepared to be held accountable for what those anonymous people do with it. I'm sure you don't just sell transit to any spammer who comes along without researching them a little first, why should this be any different. You might also consider asserting your right to common carrier immunity under 47USC230.
OK -- I looked at that part of the US Code (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/230.html). Apart from the fact that the phrase "common carrier" does not occur in that section, subparagraph (f)(2) says:
Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or expand any law pertaining to intellectual property.
Perhaps you're referring to the law exempting ISPs from liability for user-created content? (I don't have the citation handy.) If so, remember that that law requires response to take-down notices.
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
-- Brandon Galbraith Mobile: 630.400.6992 FNAL: 630.840.2141