Quote:
Originally Posted by Harmon
First question: I haven't dug into it deeply, but it looks like the way that the system works, you have to be an internet distributor of some kind to be involved with takedown notices. Takedown notices seem to be a kind of safe harbor for distributors. Obey the notice & you avoid the liability.
|
Yeah, takedown notices are a way for both sides to avoid legal complications. The copyright holder says "take the content down and I won't sue". It lets both sides resolve the issue quickly and easily without having to go to court.
I'm not sure such a thing would really apply in the case where a store is selling/distributing content rather than an ISP hosting material that they were not necessarily aware of. However, that may be a decision that is up to the copyright holder. I would think if someone were engaging in commercial infringement, the owner would be more interested in recovering damages through the legal process than "settling" for a takedown notice. But, that sounds similar to what happened in the Amazon case. Rand's agents may or may not have issued an actual takedown (I don't know), but it would fit what happened.
That would cover Amazon removing the content from their store though. Removing content from customer's devices is another matter entirely.