• Echo Dot@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    13 hours ago

    There is a minimum amount of time allowable for Investigations though. It’s not very long and there is a very good argument it should be longer, but the registrar didn’t even take the time to look into the case. Obviously they didn’t, because otherwise it wouldn’t have done anything.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      12 hours ago

      That’s not even in their calculation for most of their customers. They aren’t going to eat a court case if they don’t have to and every refusal risks a court case. A customer has to be truly large to actually be defended by their ISP.

      • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        9 hours ago

        They wouldn’t get a court case over this. Firstly because registrars are not responsible for the content on their websites, And social media sites and other sites that allow users to post-content to them are themselves not directly responsible for the content users choose to post.

        The appropriate action for a registrar is to contact the owner of the website in question, If it is getting close to the allotted time and they haven’t had a response then they take the website down. All allowable under the law without getting sued.

        This registrar didn’t even bother trying to contact the site, they did not do a totally automatable and essentially free action, simply because they couldn’t be bothered.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 hour ago

          In the US record companies are busy making everyone responsible via court cases. That’s the problem.