Forget the school kids - that's just days before the election! For our site hosting or managed server customers it would depend on the size of the customer as to whether we would expend resource determining the truth of the matter. With colo it's a bit tougher as we often don't actually have access to the box to check everything on it - I think we'd probably wave our arms about and attempt to do nothing for as long as possible (until we saw something resembling a legal document, or at least a formal written complaint). Gerard On 28/10/2008 9:57 a.m., Juha Saarinen wrote:
This is, I believe, an operational issue... I was reading this Computerworld story over the weekend:
http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/117D6C93C541D21ACC2574EF00185387
in which Mathew Bolland of TelstraClear says:
'TelstraClear’s head of corporate services, Mathew Bolland, says from November 1, if TelstraClear hosts a website and someone phones up complaining that site has breached their copyright, TelstraClear will have to take the site down.
“We don’t check or verify,” he says. “We take it down.”'
When Section 92A popped up, this is what everyone thought would happen, but assumed wouldn't because in Bolland's words, "this is a ridiculous situation."
Presumably, the take-downs will only happen for individual sites and those of small businesses unable to stump up the big legal fees to contest such actions - or is everyone affected, no matter what size?
How many of you will follow TelstraClear and Xnet (which is already terminating customers if they receive complaints from copyright holders) and take down sites without checking or verifying complaints?
-- Netspace Services Limited http://www.netspace.net.nz Phone +64 4 917 8098 Mobile +64 21 246 2266 Level One, 220 Thorndon Quay, Thorndon PO Box 12-082, Thorndon, Wellington 6004, New Zealand