SOPA (maybe?) DroppedFollow

I think it's a case of my government being pussy whipped by yours. It's ********* I don't really see how the US can claim jurisdiction over .net domains.


I think what this whole situation needs, is for Tim Berners-Lee to come out and say he copyrighted the whole web, and sue the US government.

That's not necessarily true. It's no secret that the site was used consistently for the exchange of illegally copied material. I'd assume the state would make a case showing a long history of take-down requests from copyright holders and other evidence showing that it's reasonable to believe that the hosts (A) were aware of the wealth of illegal material and (B) made only token efforts to do anything about it.

Mere ignorance isn't an excuse from liability in any event. If a bunch of kids have a party at my house and are drinking, doing drugs and **** fighting, I have liability even if my excuse is "Gee, I didn't know." It's even worse when the state can prove I bought a bunch of booze, chicken feed and have a long history of documented complaints against me.

I agree that knee-jerk reactions are the best and there should be no middle ground between complete government shutdowns and rampant, ignored violation of the law. We should celebrate this wise accord.

I don't think it's completely inappropriate. I think the bar for taking strong action was set too low and that the law needs some revision to protect the owners but the basic concept of "You're responsible for what goes on on your own property" is a valid one and should apply to web content as well.


I don't think it's "good enough" to place the entire burden for locating violations on your "property" on others, no. If you can't show some responsibility for what occurs on your property, then ultimately you'll wind up with liability. The best way to protect yourself from that liability is with a pro-active attempt at policing it rather than a smirk and a shrug.

That simply makes it far too expensive to actually run any kind of content sharing website. Which is, ultimately, the end goal here.


Why not? That is what is outlined by the DMCA.

Verizon is not extensively or primarily used for criminal chatter. Nor is the local coffee shop, for instance. I've said I don't support the pending legislation because I think it sets the bar too low; a news site shouldn't be shut down because of a few potentially violating comments in the forum section.

A bar that served primarily as a front operation for coordinating illegal activity would likely be shut down and prosecuted, though. Even if the bartender says "Golly, who knew?"

Edited, Jan 20th 2012 10:50am by Jophiel

Except your house is a website with millions of people in it... Considering the number of pages on Megaupload I've seen removed, I'd say they were doing everything in their power to prevent people from sharing illegal content.

...and?

If you can't properly police yourself for your growth, perhaps you should restrain your growth until you can find a solution. Allowing 150 people to party at your house doesn't make you less liable than allowing ten people.

Nah. It's 150 people discussing internet regulation.

The entirety of Google could not police YouTube, the sheer volume of content they have uploaded every day would require a staff so large that it would be impossible to turn a profit. I will give them that they are pretty good about taking stuff down once it's found, but that relies on the users reporting it.

If you think webmasters should be responsible for the content of what other people post, think of it this way. I'm a pissed customer because I think you and your website screwed me over. So I post infringing content on some obscure part of your website and report you. Your fault because it's your website, you get in trouble. You're still online? I do it again. You're in trouble again. Doesn't take long before a single disgruntled customer destroys your business because you're required to police something you have absolutely no control over. Think back to the origins of Alla and EQ. Alla wouldn't be here.

What about privacy policies of these websites? I've never used MU so I can't speak to their policy, but many upload websites unofficially tell you to encrypt everything before you upload it. How are they supposed to monitor encrypted content? Also when a company tells you they are going to go through everything you upload with a fine tooth comb, how much business do you think they're going to do?

Keep in mind the type of people you're dealing with. If possible, the MPAA would take down anything with more than two consecutive frames and the RIAA would take down anything with a musical note, since it likely infringes on something, somewhere, that maybe someone might think of and they could make money off of, maybe.

As far as stopping piracy, it's impossible. Digital content is data, nothing more, and you can't filter ones and zeros from other ones and zeros without some very serious monitoring that nobody in the US would stand for. The only way to decrease piracy is to remove the incentive of doing so, but that would require a change in the business model.

Many people are learning to use the internet to their advantage and they are giving their work away for free, becoming very popular in the process. Then future works are set at very reasonable prices. What they are finding is that people are willing to pay for work as long as it's at a reasonable price. Unfortunately this cuts Hollywood out of the picture and Hollywood is actively trying to stop it. They don't like the fact that they can't get rich riding the coattails of talent anymore.

If you honestly think this is about the artists or anyone other than the music and movie industry lining their pockets, you need to do a little research into the history of this stuff.

At the destruction of the internet? No. If you're going to use the tools to promote yourself, understand the potential consequences of doing so. Change your business model.

And you're thinking this is meant to protect the little guy, it's not. This is meant to protect Hollywood. The little guys are learning how to use it to their advantage.



Since I can take the moral high ground on this issue, no, it's really not like that.

Edit: I do feel that copyright holders have a right to protect their content, but not at any cost.

Edited, Jan 20th 2012 8:12am by Raolan