Szostek v. Drexel University

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that defendants reasonably implemented repeat infringer policy where it refrained from terminating user accounts, where the decision to not terminate was made for “appropriate” reasons
• finding reasonable implementation where defendant had “a system for responding to takedown notices,” did “not interfere with the copyright owners’ ability to issue notices,” and “terminate[d] users who repeatedly or blatantly infringe[d]”
• “Thus, service providers that purposefully ... fail to terminate users despite their persistent and flagrant infringement are not eligible for protection under the safe harbor.”
• “Undoubtedly, MP3tunes is aware that some level of infringement occurs. But, there is no genuine dispute that MP3tunes did not have specific ‘red flag’ knowledge with respect to any particular link....”
• “While knowledge is not an element of copyright infringement, it is relevant to a service provider’s decision whether appropriate circumstances exist to terminate a user’s account.”
• “[T]he DMCA does not place the burden of investigation on the internet service provider. . . . [I]f investigation is required to determine whether material is infringing, then those facts and circumstances are not ‘red flags.’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).