Quote:
Originally Posted by sclitheroe
I wonder how usenet providers avoid legal liability for having entire copyright works hosted in their feed spools. From a legal perspective, thats the big difference with bittorrent, is that the trackers don't possess and distribute copyright material.
Web sites and FTP sites are subject to legal action for providing copyright material, why aren't usenet sites? If you claim that its because you don't control what comes in on the feeds, couldn't the same be said if you ran an anonymous FTP server?
|
Copy Pasta ala Wiki
In the United States, usenet providers can qualify for protection under the DMCA Safe Harbor regulations, provided that they establish a mechanism to comply with and respond to takedown notices from copyright holders.[7]
Removal of copyrighted content from the entire usenet network is a nearly impossible task, due to the rapid propagation between servers and the retention done by each server. Petitioning a usenet provider for removal only removes it from that one server's retention cache, but not any others. It is possible for a special post cancellation message to be distributed to remove it from all servers, but many providers ignore cancel messages by standard policy, because they can be easily falsified and submitted by anyone.