Masataka, You’re incorrect about the DMCA when you say “DMCA treats ‘linking’ to illegal contents as illegal as the contents themselves”. You must knowingly link to works that clearly infringe somebody’s copyright. A link to the Israel.TV websites themselves is not to a specific work, so it’s not covered by DMCA. So first, as long as you don’t know that a work is infringing someone’s copyright, then you cannot be held liable for contributor infringement for directing users to that work. But, over and above that requirement, a link that doesn’t go directly to a specific work, but just a website in general (as the judgement declares “shall block access to the website”) is completely out of the bounds of DMCA. Nevertheless, this is still a court order, and presumably carries the full force of the court despite its ridiculous nature. It has the potential to force innocent parties to spend a ton of money defending themselves against red herrings and straw men. -mel via cell On May 8, 2022, at 8:22 AM, Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote: Mel Beckman wrote: But the phrase "or linking to the domain" Includes hundreds, possibly thousands, of unwitting certain parties: DMCA treats "linking" to illegal contents as illegal as the contents themselves, which is why I wrote: : In addition, it seems to me that name server operators "having : actual knowledge" that some domain names are used for copyright : infringements are not be protected by DMCA.
I think I am simply right.
So, you know nothing about DMCA. Read it.
The lawsuit is contradictory and overreaching.
As for transit ISPs enjoying a safe harbor of DMCA, yes, as I already said so. Masataka Ohta