There is zero liability for any discussion forum which responds promptly to a takedown request under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's provisions
AFAIK, in order to be protected under the DMCA, Politijab would have to, among other things: (1) form a corporation or other limited liability entity to operate this website and (2) register an agent with the US Copyright Office. See http://www.copyright.gov/onlinesp/
. AFAIK, Politijab has done neither. These are only two of the requirements for protection under the DMCA--there are more. See "Eligibility for Limitations Generally" and "Limitations for Information Residing on Systems or Networks at the Direction of Users" at http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf
. Furthermore, the DMCA does not stop you from being sued in the first place and being forced to defend yourself and prove that you complied with all of the requirements for protection, and it further AFAIK only provides protection for claims made in the USA. If you believe any of the above statements are incorrect, please identify the incorrect statements and cite your authorities.
I don't see anything in the text of the statute that says it only protects corporations. If you have any support for that, I'd be glad to see it.
The statute is also peppered liberally with phrases like "complies substantially" and "substantially the following," and other language indicating fairly clearly the statute is intended to be construed liberally to accomplish its purpose and not to be full of "gotchas." This kind of drafting is intended to convey how courts should apply the law.
I imagine if the issue were ever litigated, the phrase "Internet Service Provider" would be interpreted as liberally as the similar language in Section 230 of the CDA; that is, any third party who is not the originator of the material.
Similarly, just as courts have treated claims based on technicalities about allegedly defective DMCA notifications with disdain, I doubt they're going to treat a litigant well who sues without any attempt whatsoever to notify first, on a website where it's very easy to determine the responsible party. Complying with formalities would be nice, and if Justin is actually very concerned about copyright liability, he should probably at least put a notification on the front page as to where such notifications should be sent, and if he's very, very concerned, actually register someone as an agent with the Copyright Office.
Finally, if a case did survive anyway, the four paragraph rule really isn't going to offer much protection, because four paragraphs could easily be the core of a brief but still copyrighted work. I suppose it would be evidence of a lack of intent to assist in copyright infringement.
Not that I'm really interested in a lengthy debate about the issue, though I'd be interested in your basis for the claim that you have to be a corporation to qualify as an "Internet Service Provider." I also wonder why you think a court would disregard the language in the statute itself which fairly clearly prescribes a substantial compliance standard rather than a hyper-formal list of absolute requirements.
I don't have any authorities other than the statute itself, since as far as I know, nobody has ever based a claim of copyright liability on your theory of the statute and how it should be applied.