• 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.