-3 upvotes, 2 direct replies (showing 2)
View submission: Let's talk content. AMA.
The DMCA is intended to protect service providers (reddit) because they do not police for copyrighted content. By moderating such content without legal notice (DMCA) you lose those protections.
That is **not** how the safe harbor works. It merely requires that an online service provider a) not directly benefit from copyright infringement b) not be aware of infringing material and c) expeditiously remove infringing material. It doesn't require the ridiculous "all or nothing" approach you are suggesting here.
Comment by caitlinreid at 16/07/2015 at 23:14 UTC
9 upvotes, 2 direct replies
I've spent too much time on this already but here.
**Do Not Actively Monitor the Website.** Active monitoring of the website will give the website actual or putative knowledge of user conduct and content. Thus, active monitoring creates the possibility that a website will be liable for all user-caused harms except those preempted by the Communications Decency Act’s safe harbor.
**Respond to Complaints.** Although in general websites should minimize contact with user-generated content, if a website receives a legitimate complaint about user content (and, in the case of copyright infringement, the notice meets the statutory standards), it usually has a duty to respond promptly (unless the claim is preempted by the safe harbor in the Communications Decency Act).
http://www.ericgoldman.org/writings/websiteliabilityalert.htm
Comment by caitlinreid at 16/07/2015 at 23:03 UTC
7 upvotes, 0 direct replies
That is exactly how safe harbor worked the last time I spent 3 months researching it. The entire reasoning was that if you are policing your content then you are responsible for what is posted. If you are policing your content you cannot claim to be an intermediary / service provider and those protections are not available to you.
Think about it, who in the hell is reddit to decide if something infringes copyright? They don't know what agreements are in place, who owns what or who has a license to share it. To do anything except respond to DMCA notices in accordance with the law is extremely foolish.
Maybe new case law changed this a bit, I really don't have time to go look again. But I assure you, I've been interested in the subject for years and spent months pouring over everything when I put a user submitted site online last time and my first post is accurate in that context.