Subject: [hrpc] re implementation of code 451

From: Sandra Braman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2021 14:27:40 -0600

A correction:  In my earlier email in response to Mallory's response to my
comments on draft association, I referred to errors in a document about US
law.  Having been given next to no time to absorb and think through the new
draft and her comments before IETF began, during a period in which I have
several other commitments in place, I was in a rush but let me correct the
point.  What I was thinking of was in the draft implementation report on
Code 451 (
https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-451-imp-report-00.html#rfc.section.6).
Section 17.1 here re US law is correct, there is a statutory requirement
that third party intermediaries take down copyrighted content in response
to assertions of infringement, having in essence been deputized by the US
government to that end in lieu of requiring disputes to actually be settled
in court (itself very problematic). Most of the items in 17.2 are private
party decisions, not legal requirements -- it was to those, and additional
areas in which high profile takedowns have taken place recently, upon which
I was commenting when I said that these are NOT legally mandated takedowns
for which use of code 451 would be appropriate.

As a separate matter:  I'd love to do a full-bore analysis of where things
are with code 451 at this point, if anyone with the technical skills
required to see what has happened and is happening would be interested in
collaborating on such a project.

Sandra Braman