reading this
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/07/...ker-copyright/ it's clear that a change in the law has to come. DMCA protects Phatservers from anything illegal that I might do on their servers. This comes from the Betamax case years ago. Yet piracy sites aren't the manufacturers or only the hosting service alone.
They distribute content via their servers and charge for the download. This IMO makes the publishers and a storage facility. The law needs to define this clearly. If you sell access to illegal goods, you're responsible. The responsibility needs to be appropriate. A shop selling one stolen watch among 100s of legit watches is an over sight. A shop selling 99 stolen watches out of 100 is a fencing operation.
DMCA clearly states, as it should, that the hosting service isn't responsible for the uploaded content. The processors Terms and Conditions must clearly state
the sellers have to be responsible for what they sell.
SOPA was a sledge Hammer to crack a walnut. Remove the funding and the beast starves. Not to death, but it's reduced to kids sharing.
Interesting paragraph in the article.
Quote:
|
Whether Megaupload really did comply with the DMCA is sharply contested. To qualify for the DMCA's safe harbor, Internet companies must terminate users who are repeat infringers, and the government says Megaupload didn't. According to the indictment, for instance, it failed to terminate the account of one user despite repeated requests from a movie studio, including 85 takedown notices relating to 57 feature films that were being posted on at least 200 publicly available links.
|
Anyone remember a certain Tube site owner who was very unclear on this and needed to consult his lawyer?