Originally Posted by FlipperPA Peregrine
[...]Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly sure the DMCA doesn't distinguish between "in-world" versus "inventory", and both servers are hosted by Linden Lab. Wouldn't this eliminate the safe harbor provision by not removing the offending content - or at least freezing it during an investigation - from inventory as well?
That's right. Your first point ties in, so I'll just answer both at once. The analysis is actually really simple on this one. I'll parse out the important parts of the law, which says:
"A service provider shall not be liable for ... infringement of copyright [for user] storage ... of ... material ... if the service provider ... upon notification of claimed infringement ... responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity." http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/h...2----000-.html
As laws go, this one is pretty straightforward. If a provider "responds expeditiously to remove or disable access to" infringing material, they're off the hook for it. If not, they lose the protection of this provision.
The way it would play out is that you'd file a lawsuit, name them as a co-defendant on contributory and direct infringement grounds (same way that Kaaza, Napster, etc. have been sued) and attach your DMCA notices. You'd be arguing both that they facilitated the infringement contributorily, and that they are liable for it directly for failing to take it down. They'd have arguments (e.g. too complex to remove items, they really did act expeditiously, etc.) but the claim appears completely reasonable to me.