12-19-2011, 02:54 PM
|
|
|
It's 42
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Global
Posts: 18,083
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregE
One word... Whac-A-Mole
If you're familiar with how that phrase applies to tubes and pirate forums, then you know exactly why DMCA does not and can never work.
If you don't know what I'm talking about, you clearly don't understand the problem.
It's really that simple.
|
"Whac-A-Mole" -- SOPA will just be little better than the DMCA the pirates will just change boats.(Best it will do is to reduce their profile for a time then wash, rinse repeat.)
That is the problem.
Quote:
@woj
War on drugs is in no way even similar to piracy... with war on drugs, the consumer has no alternative, there is no way to legally get drugs, so that's why it will never get stopped...
|
Metaphorically and not literally -- if people want something they will do it in spite of any law -- that was my point.
If it can be digitalized the copyright will be infringed -- lock the damn door.
Don't get me wrong -- I am against copyright infringement. But incidental infringement? This board as example; one hotlinked image is infringement? Technically yes if without ownership or license but this is incidental to GFY's purpose. Same could be said of social networking domains.
Should Search Engines have their DNS delisted by USA ISPs for reason of image search, e.g.; Google Images, etc? You could easily say that the image search is predominantly infringing and they are profiting by it. However the collateral damage may be more that you expect -- think about it. Bye-bye Google and most other major search engines ... Bye-bye Search Engine Marketing ...
So to avoid this scenario, Google no longer will have image search and the "bad guys" can't be listed in the SERP results -- that is justified censorship? Is it still justified when the legal ownership of your content is voluntarily is questioned
Read the fine print and understand the difference between the words and and or
Quote:
SOPA §104
24 financial affiliation with an Internet site, in the reasonable
25 belief that—
1 (1) the Internet site is a foreign infringing site
2 or (* note added for emphasis: stop condition satisfied -- proceed to (2)) is an Internet site dedicated to theft of U.S. prop-
3 erty; and ...
4 (2) the action is consistent with the entity’s
5 terms of service or other contractual rights.
|
The EEF's lawyers saw this.
Voluntary action without court order, only a foreign infringing site and the action is consistent with the entity’s terms of service -- there can be no liability.
We all trust the good judgment of "a service provider, payment network provider, Internet advertising service, advertiser, Internet search engine, domain name registry, or domain name registrar ..." and give them carte blanche 
|
|
|