Originally Posted by rack gear
the DMCA requires the ISP to take reasonable action against infringement... this is the stick that got the deal made... if there's no reasonable action against infringement, there's no safe harbor...
as for the other side of the coin... dude... it's SIX STRIKES... seriously... if people don't learn after SIX warnings... let the chips fall where they will...
and let me guess... your alternative course of action would be to do nothing, right?
To address your last point first, no... you assume too much. My alternative course of action would be to continue discourse and working within the legal system to devise and revise laws and punishments that are both effective and targeted, without being overreaching or overbroad, or otherwise unjustly punishing the non-criminal or circumventing rights of anyone, be they citizen or corporation.
There is no right for anyone to steal any more that there is a right for any business to stay in business.
As for the six strikes, sure... that is more than generous for the criminal. But not everyone is a criminal, and nobody seems to be addressing the questions I raised about the process of vetting the strikes for their appropriateness (fair use, false positives), disputes, recourse for inappropriate damage caused to the law abiding, or the cost that will be pushed onto the consumer.
Actually, a different stick was used. The DMCA requires that reasonably expeditious action must be taken to remove infringing material, thus qualifying them for safe harbor so long as they played no direct / manual role in the process of distribution or storage of the infringing content. The DMCA does NOT compel and ISP to actively play a role in policing for infringement or otherwise preventing it, nor is it a qualification for safe harbor... or necessarily reasonable (it takes more than one to decide what is fair).
Honestly, if that were in fact what the DMCA said... there really wouldn't be the need for this sort of deal, now would there? Would seem a bit superfluous to ink such a contract in 2011, if it were already written into a law that became effective in 1998, no?
I'm sympathetic to the damage that piracy has done to the industry, but I'm far less sympathetic to bad laws and back room deals. Put the stick down and stop beating up lawful, paying customers just because other people who looked like us stole from you... it may just make your mission easier.