Hey Nathan, any chance Amazon risks losing their service provider status for this statement? - GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum

X

stocktrader23

Let's do some business.

Join Date: Jan 2003

Posts: 18781
Share

Post
#1

Hey Nathan, any chance Amazon risks losing their service provider status for this statement?

12-03-2010, 04:27 AM

Assuming they have and want to keep that exemption / status in the first place.

http://aws.amazon.com/message/65348/

I'd say at a minimum they opened themselves up to libel / defamation lawsuits.

I'm kind of surprised Amazon posted this kind of a response when something much less inflammatory would have sufficed.

Hands Free Adult - Join Once, Earn For Life

"I try to make a habit of bouncing my eyes up to the face of a beautiful woman, and often repeat “not mine” in my head or even verbally. She’s not mine. God has her set aside. She’s not mine. She’s His little girl, and she needs me to fight for her by keeping my eyes where they should be."
Tags: None
Odin

Confirmed User

Join Date: Jan 2004

Posts: 2545
Share

Post
#2

12-03-2010, 04:38 AM

They are simply stating that after it has come to their attention, don't see how that effects their service provider status for the hordes of other content they host but aren't necessarily aware of the nature. Interesting that "copyright" is being used to take down wikileaks as well.

ICQ: 637//961--015
Comment
minicivan

Confirmed User

Join Date: Jun 2007

Posts: 943
Share

Post
#3

12-03-2010, 04:42 AM

Originally posted by Odin

They are simply stating that after it has come to their attention, don't see how that effects their service provider status for the hordes of other content they host but aren't necessarily aware of the nature. Interesting that "copyright" is being used to take down wikileaks as well.

What is interesting? As any service provider does, they made a decision after becoming aware of what was happening. And it's not a question of which pieces of content they have rights to or don't. Its obvious (as they stated) that for almost all their content, they have zero rights to including 250,000 secret diplomatic cables.

Last edited by minicivan; 12-03-2010, 04:43 AM.
Comment
12clicks

Too lazy to set a custom title

Join Date: Jan 2001

Posts: 19813
Share

Post
#4

12-03-2010, 05:26 AM

Originally posted by stocktrader23

Assuming they have and want to keep that exemption / status in the first place.

http://aws.amazon.com/message/65348/

I'd say at a minimum they opened themselves up to libel / defamation lawsuits.

I'm kind of surprised Amazon posted this kind of a response when something much less inflammatory would have sufficed.

I'm sure you're way smarter than their legal team. why not send them a link to this post and offer them your sig for $10 a month.

I'm not a dinosaur, I'm a crocodile. I've seen dinosaurs come and go and I'm left unimpressed.
Comment
spazlabz

Confirmed User

Join Date: Jul 2003

Posts: 6548
Share

Post
#5

12-03-2010, 05:30 AM

I read that statement and it did not sound inflammatory to me at all. As a matter of fact I think they went a little above and beyond by explaining exactly why they killed the site. I like wikileaks but I think Amazon was well within their rights to take the actions they took
Comment
Barefootsies

Choice is an Illusion

Join Date: Feb 2005

Posts: 42635
Share

Post
#6

12-03-2010, 05:40 AM

Originally posted by 12clicks

I'm sure you're way smarter than their legal team. why not send them a link to this post and offer them your sig for $10 a month.

Should You Email Your Members?

Link1 | Link2 | Link3

Enough Said.

"Would you rather live like a king for a year or like a prince forever?"
Comment
Supz

Arthur Flegenheimer

Join Date: Jul 2006

Posts: 11057
Share

Post
#7

12-03-2010, 05:44 AM

Doesnt seem like there is anything wrong in what they said. It goes the same for all hosts. No one pre-screens. They all have TOS. This is just another day. Just happens the site has more publicity then others. I am sure it is not the only site that they have shutdown. Just the most well known. I dont know what this guy was thinking when he hosted something so controversial on a big hosting service like that. If he had some shady chinese hosting account the site would probably be up right now, unless for ddos.
Comment
JA$ON

Confirmed User

Join Date: Aug 2007

Posts: 1329
Share

Post
#8

12-03-2010, 05:51 AM

The biggest diff between the 2 (besides whats 12 clicks pointed out, lol) Is That the CIA, Mossad, and MI6 dont have a vested interest in what Pornhub has on its front page.
Comment
marketsmart

HOMICIDAL TROLL KILLER

Join Date: Dec 2004

Posts: 20419
Share

Post
#9

12-03-2010, 05:56 AM

Originally posted by 12clicks

I'm sure you're way smarter than their legal team. why not send them a link to this post and offer them your sig for $10 a month.

you're a real jackass ron, but that was pretty funny...

.
Comment
Grapesoda

So Fucking Banned

Join Date: Jul 2003

Posts: 46238
Share

Post
#10

12-03-2010, 06:00 AM

right in the TOS:

"you represent and warrant that you own or otherwise control all of the rights to the content… that use of the content you supply does not violate this policy and will not cause injury to any person or entity.”

pretty sure wikileaks doesn't have the rights to the content they published
Comment
Hentaikid

Confirmed User

Join Date: Nov 2002

Posts: 1250
Share

Post
#11

12-03-2010, 06:04 AM

"If they don't like the first amendment they shouldn't sell books"

very dissapointed in Amazon, and the chirpy "we are very excited" corporate newspeak doesn't help
Comment
JFK

FUBAR the ORIGINATOR

Join Date: Jan 2002

Posts: 67373
Share

Post
#12

12-03-2010, 06:12 AM

Originally posted by JA$ON

The biggest diff between the 2 (besides whats 12 clicks pointed out, lol) Is That the CIA, Mossad, and MI6 dont have a vested interest in what Pornhub has on its front page.

FUBAR Webmasters - The FUBAR Times - FUBAR Webmasters Mobile - FUBARTV.XXX
For promo opps contact jfk at fubarwebmasters dot com
Comment
DWB

Registered User

Join Date: Jul 2003

Posts: 31779
Share

Post
#13

12-03-2010, 06:16 AM

Originally posted by bm bradley

right in the TOS:

"you represent and warrant that you own or otherwise control all of the rights to the content? that use of the content you supply does not violate this policy and will not cause injury to any person or entity.?

pretty sure wikileaks doesn't have the rights to the content they published

Sounds like every pirate operation out there who gets away with not only publishing content they don't own, but profiting from it as well.
Comment
charlie g

Confirmed User

Join Date: Aug 2006

Posts: 2759
Share

Post
#14

12-03-2010, 06:36 AM

Originally posted by 12clicks

I'm sure you're way smarter than their legal team. why not send them a link to this post and offer them your sig for $10 a month.

You are one caustic fucker, but that was funny as shit!

AlanAgus1 at gmail dot com
-------------------------------
Comment
gideongallery

Confirmed User

Join Date: Aug 2003

Posts: 7082
Share

Post
#15

12-03-2010, 06:51 AM

you do realize that the safe harbor provision doesn't give any protection for taking down content. It only allows the transfer the liablity to the copyright holder if a takedown is initiated.

if the government informed them of the "copyright" violation they can transfer the liability to government
if not they can't

btw just because amazon is willing to take the liablity for the takedown doesn't mean another company should too

remember the current story was that it was taken down due to DDOS attack and that would cost amazon millions in lost business since the whole point of s3 is that it can't be taken down by such an attack because of the SOS nature of the site.

“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak
Comment
cherrylula

lol

Join Date: Jan 2002

Posts: 15969
Share

Post
#16

12-03-2010, 07:08 AM

Sounds about right, stolen content.

Funny that they did use amazon, makes me wonder about these "hackers." That right there sort of spoils the whole thing for me. Where are the real people behind the curtain? Only an idiot would use services like amazon or godaddy for something like that. Srsly...
Comment
Wizzo

2011 GFY Hall of Fame!

Join Date: Nov 2000

Posts: 15224
Share

Post
#17

12-03-2010, 07:09 AM

Originally posted by Hentaikid

"If they don't like the first amendment they shouldn't sell books"

very dissapointed in Amazon, and the chirpy "we are very excited" corporate newspeak doesn't help

1st amendment doesn't protect stolen documents and nothing to do with this.

Looking for Opportunity!
Comment
Kiopa_Matt

Confirmed User

Join Date: Oct 2007

Posts: 1448
Share

Post
#18

12-03-2010, 07:46 AM

Whoever at Amazon that wrote that press release was obviously under a bit of stress. Fairly abrasive, but at least to the point.

xMarkPro -- Ultimate Blog Network Management
Streamline your marketing operations. Centralize management of domains, pages, Wordpress blogs, sponsors, link codes, media items, sales and traffic statistics, plus more!
Comment
_Richard_

Too lazy to set a custom title

Join Date: Oct 2006

Posts: 30991
Share

Post
#19

12-03-2010, 07:46 AM

with this statement: 'when companies or people go about securing and storing large quantities of data that isn’t rightfully theirs, and publishing this data without ensuring it won’t injure others, it’s a violation of our terms of service, and folks need to go operate elsewhere.'

i can understand their position and it most certainly looks like it could stand
Comment
SmokeyTheBear

►SouthOfHeaven

Join Date: Jun 2004

Posts: 28609
Share

Post
#20

12-03-2010, 08:14 AM

Originally posted by bm bradley

right in the TOS:

"you represent and warrant that you own or otherwise control all of the rights to the content? that use of the content you supply does not violate this policy and will not cause injury to any person or entity.?

pretty sure wikileaks doesn't have the rights to the content they published

every amusement park has a sign saying they can't be held responsible in the event of injury or death , but they often get sued because of injury or death.

The tos claims you must control ALL OF THE RIGHTS to the content, very few if any sites including amazon control "ALL THE RIGHTS" to the content they display. They aren't following their own tos.

Google and other sites display material they do not hold a copyright claim to, there is a process for this known as a dmca complaint. Unless wikileaks has been denying legit copyright claims then there is no basis for removing them based on the fact they "might" be violating a copyright claim, or that we are "pretty sure" they don't have a copyright claim.

hatisblack at yahoo.com
Comment
Quentin

Confirmed User

Join Date: Dec 2002

Posts: 1280
Share

Post
#21

12-03-2010, 08:16 AM

Originally posted by Wizzo

1st amendment doesn't protect stolen documents and nothing to do with this.

Eh... I'm afraid the question of First Amendment protection for publication of pilfered documents is not even close to being that cut and dry.

Whether or not there are First Amendment problems with Amazon's decision, the larger questions of whether Assange's/Wikileaks' actions are illegal and whether Assange has committed a crime for which he can be prosecuted in the U.S. could definitely raise some substantive First Amendment issues.

For those interested in expert discussion of the legal issues surrounding Wikileaks, check out the ongoing conversation taking place on OpinioJuris.

Shockingly, the OJ bloggers (a collection of law professors from various respected law schools) are just a bit more authoritative on questions of law than is the GFY populace..... ;-)

Q. Boyer
Comment
Robbie

Leaner, Meaner, Faster

Join Date: Aug 2002

Posts: 20960
Share

Post
#22

12-03-2010, 09:37 AM

Originally posted by 12clicks

I'm sure you're way smarter than their legal team. why not send them a link to this post and offer them your sig for $10 a month.

BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHA!

-Robbie
ClaudiaMarie.Com
Comment

Previous template Next

Working...