DMCA requires that the service provider wait no fewer than ten and no more than fourteen days after forwarding the counter-notification and then put it back up if the service provider has not received notice of suit in that period.
Thanks for the reply. I'm not sure about the section in bold requiring the ISP to wait 10 days. The phrasing is weird. Here is the relevant section of the DMCA(emphasis mine):
Under the knowledge standard, a service provider is eligible for the limitation on liability only if it does not have actual knowledge of the infringement, is not aware of
facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent, or upon gaining
knowledge or awareness, responds expeditiously to take the material down or
block access to it.
The statute also establishes procedures for proper notification, and rules as to its effect. (Section 512(c)(3)). Under the notice and takedown procedure, a copyright
submits a notification under penalty of perjury, including a list of specified
to the service providerâ(TM)s designated agent. Failure to comply substantially
the statutory requirements means that the notification
will not be considered in
determining the requisite level of knowledge by the service provider. If, upon receiving
proper notification, the service provider promptly removes or blocks
access to the
identified in the
notification, the provider is exempt from monetary liability.
In addition, the provider is protected from any liability to any person for claims based
on its having taken down the material. (Section 512(g)(1)).
order to protect against the possibility of erroneous or fraudulent
notifications, certain safeguards are built into section 512. Subsection (g)(1) gives the
the opportunity to respond to the notice and takedown by filing a counter
In order to qualify for the protection against liability for taking down
material, the service provider must promptly notify the subscriber that it has removed
disabled access to the material. If the subscriber serves a counter notification
complying with statutory
requirements, including a statement under penalty of perjury
the material was
removed or disabled through mistake or misidentification, then
unless the copyright owner files an action seeking a court order against the subscriber,
service provider must put the material back up within 10-14 business days after
receiving the counter notification.
are provided for knowing material misrepresentations in either
or a counter notice. Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents that
material is infringing, or that it was removed or blocked through mistake or misidentification, is liable for any
resulting damages (including costs and attorneysâ(TM) fees) incurred
the alleged infringer, the copyright owner or its licensee, or the service provider.
I believe the last paragraph does allow for penalties for deliberately false take down notices. The problem is that you would have to actually take the case to court and discover that they knew the notices would be false. IANAL but if I read this right, if you file a counter claim to get things put back up claiming misidentification or mistake and you are found to be infringing anyway, you could be on the hook for the copyright holder's attorney's fees. If the counter-claim requires a reason, I would recommend something other than one of these two.