Comments on: Print-on-Demand Vendor Doesn’t Qualify for DMCA Safe Harbor–Feingold v. RageOn https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2020/07/print-on-demand-vendor-doesnt-qualify-for-dmca-safe-harbor-feingold-v-rageon.htm Sun, 02 Aug 2020 23:51:41 +0000 hourly 1 By: News of the Week; July 29, 2020 – Communications Law at Allard Hall https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2020/07/print-on-demand-vendor-doesnt-qualify-for-dmca-safe-harbor-feingold-v-rageon.htm#comment-2680 Sun, 02 Aug 2020 23:51:41 +0000 https://blog.ericgoldman.org/?p=21427#comment-2680 […] Print-on-Demand Vendor Doesn’t Qualify for DMCA Safe Harbor–Feingold v. RageOn (Eric Goldman) […]

]]> By: Comments on the “Platform Accountability and Consumer Transparency Act” (the “PACT Act”) - Technology & Marketing Law Blog https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2020/07/print-on-demand-vendor-doesnt-qualify-for-dmca-safe-harbor-feingold-v-rageon.htm#comment-2669 Mon, 27 Jul 2020 14:15:33 +0000 https://blog.ericgoldman.org/?p=21427#comment-2669 […] I think most people nowadays would say that 14 days isn’t an expeditious response (see, e.g., Feingold v. RageOn, saying an 18 day turnaround was not expeditious); but the PACT Act would create a hard […]

]]>