That's not correct, there's no time allowance to remove. What there is, from the person issuing the DMCA, is two weeks before you can start legal proceedings.
You could argue that this means that you don't have to act for two weeks, but in practice this is where if you got into legal proceedings you'd be looking at damages claims for the period.
You get two types of hosting providers: those who act promptly and those that don't. Those that don't, mostly fall into one of two camps: conscious safe spaces for piracy (and potentially other dubious content) and providers who don't have the facility to do anything promptly (e.g. no 24/7 NOC looking at email notices).
> That's not correct, there's no time allowance to remove.
Letter of the law (17 USC ยง512) is that the service provider is required to "act expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material" upon discovering that it infringes upon copyright. The law doesn't define precisely what "expeditiously" means, but it's understood that it should, at a minimum, be handled at a similar priority as other urgent business requests. You don't need to wake someone up from a dead sleep to do it, but you can't sit on the request either.
DMCA only applies if the pirate stream is showing a signal from a US broadcaster (for soccer, NBC or Fox Sports). As soccer is a global sport, live games will usually have pirate streams from many different countries' broadcasters, not just the US.
You could argue that this means that you don't have to act for two weeks, but in practice this is where if you got into legal proceedings you'd be looking at damages claims for the period.
You get two types of hosting providers: those who act promptly and those that don't. Those that don't, mostly fall into one of two camps: conscious safe spaces for piracy (and potentially other dubious content) and providers who don't have the facility to do anything promptly (e.g. no 24/7 NOC looking at email notices).