Quote:
Originally Posted by raymor
helterskelter we already won. The bill has been withdrawn. The disinformation campaign can stop. Everybody already decided it was a bad idea, so there is no more need for hyperbole.
Says SOPA:
|
You proved you can copy and paste. Now prove you can read. First, the text you quoted is, as far as I am aware, a separate thing to what I quoted, involving the AG. Nevertheless, here is your own quote with different emphasis to yours:
Quote:
|
site is primarily designed or operated for the purpose of, has only limited purpose or use other than, or is marketed by its operator or another acting in concert with that operator for use in, offering goods or services in a manner that engages in, enables, or facilitates--(I) a violation of section 501 of title 17, Unit States Code; (II) a violation of section 1201 of title 17, Un States Code; or (III) the sale, distribution, or promotion of goods, services, or materials bearing a counterfeit mark, as that termis defined in section 34(d) of the Lanham Act or section 2320 of title 18, United States Code;
|
Deliberately vague terms chosen to allow an enormous degree of latitude in the interpretation of what is or is not allowed. If a search engine markets itself as a way to find out content on other sites, which it obviously would, and then contains links to piracy websites, which is inevitable, then it markets itself in a manner that enables and/or facilitates piracy.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by raymor
Would you then ban hammers because they can be used to break into a car and steal? Slim jims are illegal in many areas, unless you are a licensed locksmith. Hammers aren't illegal because they are often also be used for legal purposes.
Because search engines are useful for things other than theft, they are legal.
|
Currently. But under SOPA's deliberately vague definitions, they could quite possibly be deemed to be enabling or facilitating piracy by unwittingly linking to piracy websites.