I would disagree, to me I would guess that the court would interpret the disabling of access or removal to refer to the material and not the url. The url is just a reference to the material in question. If you build a bashing system that does not let you comply with the law, that becomes your problem, not the courts. If you show good faith explain the issue and propose a reasonable timeline to resolve the issue or show financial hardship and appeal to the court for more time, then you can avoid, a lot of headaches. Nick B <nick@pelagiris.org> wrote: I just made the brain melting mistake of trying to read the DMCA. The text which jumps out at me is: `(2) EXCEPTION- Paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect to material residing at the direction of a subscriber of the service provider on a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider that is removed, or to which access is disabled by the service provider, pursuant to a notice provided under subsection (c)(1)(C), unless the service provider-- `(A) takes reasonable steps promptly to notify the subscriber that it has removed or disabled access to the material; `(B) upon receipt of a counter notification described in paragraph (3), promptly provides the person who provided the notification under subsection (c)(1)(C) with a copy of the counter notification, and informs that person that it will replace the removed material or cease disabling access to it in 10 business days; and `(C) replaces the removed material and ceases disabling access to it not less than 10, nor more than 14, business days following receipt of the counter notice, unless its designated agent first receives notice from the person who submitted the notification under subsection (c)(1)(C) that such person has filed an action seeking a court order to restrain the subscriber from engaging in infringing activity relating to the material on the service provider's system or network. I'm about 90% sure that in a fair court, it would be concluded that disabling the reported URL qualifies as disabling access to the material. The court might then issue an injunction to, in the future, disable *all* *possible* access to the material, but that's not the current text of the law. YMMV Nick B On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Roland Perry < lists@internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:
In article <596B74B410EE6B4CA8A30C3AF1A15**5EA09C8CDBA@RWC-MBX1.corp.** seven.com<596B74B410EE6B4CA8A30C3AF1A155EA09C8CDBA@RWC-MBX1.corp.seven.com>>, George Bonser <gbonser@seven.com> writes
The problem is going to be the thousands of people who have now lost
their legitimate files, research data, personal recordings, etc. that they were using Megaupload to share.
But that's an operational risk of using any commercial entity as a filestore. Thousands of people lost[1] a lot of work when fotopic.netcollapsed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Fotopic.net<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fotopic.net>;
[1] As it's getting on for a year since an apparent rescue attempt, and nothing has emerged, this seems a reasonable assumption. -- Roland Perry