I was at an IP (as in intellectual property), um, "constituency" I think, IPC, meeting at ICANN which basically consisted of 99 lawyers and me in the room. There was a fair amount of grousing about how ISPs give them the run-around when they inform them of a violation looking for a takedown, and don't take down the site or whatever demanding (sneer sneer) paper from a court of competent jurisdiction as a dodge. I explained that they should try it from the other side, we get a fair amount of spurious stuff. I gave the example of a spouse in an ugly divorce demanding we do something or other with the web site they developed together in happier days IMMEDIATELY OR ELSE!!! (typically change the password to one only they know). How can we as ISPs possibly sort that out? Court orders are your friend, they're not that hard to get if you're legitimate. The way this reg is written it has that feel, it seems to promote the fantasy that if J. Random Voice calls me and says "a site you host, creepsrus.com, violates HR3817, YOU HAVE BEEN INFORMED!" then we have been informed and therefore culpable/liable. Well, perhaps there's enough precedent that it doesn't have to be spelled out in that text what's meant by "knowingly" and a call like that wouldn't be sufficient. At the very least I'd require a clear transfer of liability. That is, if the claim (and hence, takedown) turns out to be unsupportable then any damages etc are indemnified by the complaining ("informing") party. -- -Barry Shein The World | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*