Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam
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  |
The problem with this argument is that we already give them carte blanche.
You have no recourse if google bans your site or if a CC processor declines you.
You are basically against the US government saying :
"Please consider content theft in your current system of wacking shit that is shit; and we grant you the same immunity that you already have".
CCBill could cancel your website today for any number of reasons and you have no recourse.
Paypal already canceled the entire porn industry as a whole without any recourse.
This bill is not changing the power of these companies, it's just asking for a focus on
content theft.
Now they already delete a CP site, a virus spreading site, a warez site, an incest site,
a racially hateful site, a fraudulent billing site, a spamming site.............
But OH NO! Not a content theft site!!!!!
Get real MoFo.