Just a couple of notes from the new internet service provider provisions of the Copyright Act, which appears at 17 U.S.C. 512, for those who are interested. First, it provides that with respect to information posted by users on a service provider's domain, the ISP is not liable unless and until it receives a required notice, in the form prescribed by the statute (which includes certification under penalty of perjury) that copyrighted material has been posted in violation of the statute.

Second, however, the Act provides that a person alleging a copyright violation who has given such notice to an ISP can go to any federal court, file a copy of the notice, and then get a subpoena to the ISP to obtain the name, address, etc. of the person who posted the information in violation of copyright. Word to the wise, therefore, you may not even know that the person whose copyright has been violated has obtained your name and address until you are served with a federal complaint.

I disagree with dingo and dg1 that this is an issue which ONLY Randy and FlyerTalk should care about, and agree with Matt (kokonutz). We all have a readily definable interest in not wanting to see this board shut down because of copyright violations, or the owner's or ISP's concern about it hosting copyright violations. Therefore, I agree that the concerns are valid. However, I think that these concerns are properly directed at doc, with the appropriate requests for self-control, which have been made. Doc seems like a reasonably intelligent fellow, who I believes like this forum also, and I would certainly think he intends to conform his posting to a type (i.e., linking to stories elsewhere) that don't appear to risk getting him in trouble or causing problems for FT. I would certainly prefer to see that happen before FT gets a notice, and then has to begin policing to make sure copyrighted material isn't being posted, to avoid their own liability.