Skip to content
Register

Looking for dMCA-ignored with actual court precedent

VPS Hosting by admin 18 replies 2.2K views
lookuppierre

Member

#11

I am administrate servers for association since 2018. In France we have LCEN law, transposition of EU directive. The host must act "promptly" when notified of manifestly illicit content. "Manifestly" is the key word. For copyright it is often clear, but for other things less.

I never see a French host refuse and win. The penalty is too heavy. Association would lose its status, maybe me personally liable. No one tests this.

prix fixe infrastructure: €5/mo
mediaaustin

Member

Deliverability Nerd

#12
lookuppierre said:
"promptly" when notified of manifestly illicit content

LCEN Article 6, and the "manifestement illicite" standard from the 2004 law. The French implementation is actually stricter than some neighbors because of the personal liability angle for administrators. Pierre's right: no French host is taking that bet.

The closest anyone came to "winning" on non-removal was probably some of the early Google Video cases in Italy, and Google lost those initially. Not hosting providers per se, but platform liability.

SPF, DKIM, DMARC — holy trinity ✉️
tamuma

Member

#13

Twenty years on call. Mostly here for the deals.

Following this thread because the "DMCA-ignored" hosts that advertise on LET and similar are 90% reselling Los Angeles or Miami space with a Seychelles front company. When the actual subpoena hits the actual datacenter, the "ignore" part evaporates. Seen it twice. Not court precedent, just business reality.

steveipw

Member

#14
tamuma said:
Seychelles front company

This. The legal entity is in wherever, the AS is announced from wherever, but the iron is in Equinix LA or whatever. Court orders go to where the machines live, not where the LLC is registered. I've explained this to three different "privacy" host clients who didn't understand why their "bulletproof" setup got unplugged.

ZFS won't save you from a marshal with a padlock.

zfs send | zfs receive. repeat.
Ray

Member

#15

Retired 2019. Homelab since 2020.

I went down this rabbit hole for a personal archive project. Spoke to a lawyer in Phoenix. Short version: even if you find a jurisdiction with weak copyright enforcement, the Berne Convention and various trade agreements mean the rights holder forum-shops too. They sue where your assets are or where you want to travel.

Court precedent for host refusal is thin because the economics don't support testing it. Host folds or moves, case moots.

admin

Administrator OP

Administrator

#16
Ray said:
Host folds or moves, case moots

This is the pattern I'm seeing. Thank you all for the leads. LCEN, Stoererhaftung reform, Cuevana, L'Oreal v. EBay, and the structural point about E-Commerce Directive exemption being default rather than elective.

If anyone has citations for the pre-2017 German cases specifically, or knows of a WIPO arbitration where the respondent was a host rather than a registrar, I'll take those. Otherwise I'm comfortable concluding the precedent gap is real and documentable.

— Admin

sudo make me a sandwich
SH

Member

7 #17

Following.

TA

Member

4 #18
admin said:
WIPO arbitration where the respondent was a host

WIPO DCC cases are almost all domain disputes under UDRP. Wrong venue for hosting liability. You want national court databases: EUR-Lex for CJEU, Bundesgerichtshof portal for the German stuff. WIPO won't have what you're looking for.

KI

Member

9 #19

Same here on the following. Also: if your paper gets published, link it. Would read.

Post a reply

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

Post reply Preview Save draft