Skip to content
Register

Looking for dMCA-ignored with actual court precedent

VPS Hosting by admin 18 replies 2.2K views
admin

Administrator OP

Administrator

8 #1

Researching DMCA-ignored hosting with actual court precedent for an archival project. Not piracy. Need jurisdictions where safe harbor was tested post-takedown refusal.

Specifically: cases where host declined DMCA notice and court ruled on liability. EU, SE Asia, or South America preferred. Academic context, proper licensing for archived material.

Please do not reply with general offshore hosting recommendations. I have reviewed WIPO cases; seeking national court level.

— Admin

sudo make me a sandwich
JO

Member

#2
admin said:
Actual court precedent

Oh you want the real lawyer stuff 😊 not just "we ignore dmca" on homepage I have no answer but I admire the specificity most people here just want torrent good luck admin

mediaaustin

Member

Deliverability Nerd

#3

"DMCA-ignored" is marketing gibberish outside US jurisdiction. For what it's worth, DMCA is US statute only. EU has E-Commerce Directive, no equivalent safe harbor opt-out. Court precedent you're seeking—host refusing takedown and prevailing—would undermine fundamental liability frameworks.

SPF/DKIM parallel: claiming "SPF-ignored" would be meaningless. The legal record you want may not exist because the legal theory fails at threshold. Check Lumen Database for actual filings, not provider claims.

SPF, DKIM, DMARC — holy trinity ✉️
Nadia

Member

/dev/null enthusiast

#4
mediaaustin said:
DMCA is US statute only

Precisely. Pipe "DMCA-ignored" to /dev/null outside US zone. EOF.

| admin seeks: court-tested refusal
| reality: most "ignored" = never challenged
| true precedent: redirected to academic obscurity
| my data: piped to CloudCone example, they folded in 6mo

EOF

/dev/null: full of good ideas
olespete

Member

Trust No One

#5

Has any EU host actually won in court though

airgapped, encrypted, faraday'd, still worried
mediaaustin

Member

Deliverability Nerd

#6
olespete said:
Has any EU host actually won in court though

Not for refusing a takedown, no. The cases that exist go the other direction: host ignored notice, court found liability. L'Oreal v. EBay (CJEU 2011) isn't hosting but the logic flows: knowledge triggers obligation. For actual hosting, the German cases on Stoererhaftung before 2017 reform leaned toward duty to act.

What admin wants is a unicorn. Host says "no" to rights holder, rights holder sues, host wins on "we have no obligation under local law." I cannot find it. The E-Commerce Directive 2000/31/EC Article 14 gives conditional exemption; courts have not read it as a right to refuse.

SPF, DKIM, DMARC — holy trinity ✉️
DI

Member

#7

Argentina angle: Ley 25.326 on data, not copyright. Safe harbor here is thin. We had the Cuevana cases where hosts moved faster than light to avoid being named co-defendant. No host I know of stood ground and won. The precedent admin wants doesn't exist in Mercosur either.

admin

Administrator OP

Administrator

#8
mediaaustin said:
What admin wants is a unicorn

Appreciate the candor. The archival use case: licensed newsprint digitization, rights holder in one jurisdiction objects to preservation copy in another. Not piracy, but territorial licensing collision.

If the precedent is indeed null, that itself is useful for the paper. Framing: "absence of safe harbor opt-out precedent suggests structural incompatibility with DMCA-style refusal."

Will check L'Oreal v. EBay and German Stoererhaftung pre-2017. Any other CJEU-adjacent cases I should chase?

sudo make me a sandwich
Nadia

Member

/dev/null enthusiast

5 #9
admin said:
Territorial licensing collision

Classic. You archive, they lawyer.

Pre-2017 Stoererhaftung: Telemediengesetz 7-10. Hosts were liable for third-party content if they had positive knowledge and failed to block. No "counter-notice" procedure. No safe harbor to opt out of.

Post-2017: liability only for own content and specific knowledge of illegal acts. Reform killed the old doctrine, not the host's right to refuse.

Your unicorn remains extinct.

/dev/null: full of good ideas
olespete

Member

Trust No One

7 #10
Nadia said:
No safe harbor to opt out of

This. The whole "DMCA-ignored" branding assumes a system with counter-notice and perjury clauses and statutory safe harbor that you can... choose not to use? In EU the exemption is default, not elective. No provider "opts in" to E-Commerce Directive protection, so there's nothing to "ignore."

Marketing departments don't read directives.

airgapped, encrypted, faraday'd, still worried

Post a reply

You need an account to reply. Log in or register to join the conversation.

Post reply Preview Save draft