4 ms·

Right. But the point is that laws exist that do apply to your scenario; the law would have to demonstrate that it's aiding in criminal enterprise and use legal

by mr_luc 11y ago

Right. But the point is that laws exist that do apply to your scenario; the law would have to demonstrate that it's aiding in criminal enterprise and use legal methods (maybe even an injunction). However, newspapers let people place personal ads: "Pottery enthusiast seeks friends. 555-1212, or write to 1010 Binary Lane." Should the newspaper have to call that number, and write to that address, and determine (how?) that nothing shady's going on there? The answer seems pretty clear. In the absence of outright governmental/dinosaur malice, no reasonable person who understands technology would ever propose shifting the burden to content creators/publishers in the default case. If there's a criminal investigation, they're already required by law to be helpful.

digi_owl 11y ago
> However, newspapers let people place personal ads: "Pottery enthusiast seeks friends. 555-1212, or write to 1010 Binary Lane." I recall reading a story from a guy living in England during the Amiga years. At one point he learned that he could place a personal ad in the back one of the many magazines sold, offering to exchange copies if he was mailed floppies. At the height of this activity he got so much mail he had to buy extra drives, and spend whole weekends swapping floppies. And this is sending floppies via physical mail. If you want a contemporary equivalent i hear there are people operating a "sneakernet" based on external HDDs over in Cuba. Heck, i have personally seen people bring duffel bags of CD-Rs to LAN parties. And this was back when most used modems to get online.
notahacker 11y ago
Sure, but the court isn't being asked to consider a personal ad page or comment thread, or a case in which the copyright status of the linked-to material was remotely uncertain. There are other precedents in favour of publishers to fall back on in those circumstances. What's actually brought the case is a situation where (i) the publisher had good reason to believe the material was infringing when they initially published the link (ii) the entire purpose of running the story was to encourage people to access the infringing material and (iii) when the copyright holder objected and got the original material taken down, the publisher gleefully republished an alternate link to the same material. They weren't posting personal ads for pottery enthusiasts, they were posting "if your drug dealer just got busted then try calling these ones instead". What they court is actually being asked to rule on is whether [intentionally] linking to unauthorised means of accessing copyrighted material can ever be a copyright violation, and if so, how wilful does the plaintiff have to prove the publisher's infringement was and should the plaintiff also have to prove other factors such as the linked-to copyright-violating site not being already well known to the public. The question concerns whether being one remove from the infringing content makes you immune from any threat of suit rather than who the burden of proof lies upon.

by mr_luc 11y ago

digi_owl 11y ago

> However, newspapers let people place personal ads: "Pottery enthusiast seeks friends. 555-1212, or write to 1010 Binary Lane." I recall reading a story from a guy living in England during the Amiga years. At one point he learned that he could place a personal ad in the back one of the many magazines sold, offering to exchange copies if he was mailed floppies. At the height of this activity he got so much mail he had to buy extra drives, and spend whole weekends swapping floppies. And this is sending floppies via physical mail. If you want a contemporary equivalent i hear there are people operating a "sneakernet" based on external HDDs over in Cuba. Heck, i have personally seen people bring duffel bags of CD-Rs to LAN parties. And this was back when most used modems to get online.

notahacker 11y ago

Sure, but the court isn't being asked to consider a personal ad page or comment thread, or a case in which the copyright status of the linked-to material was remotely uncertain. There are other precedents in favour of publishers to fall back on in those circumstances. What's actually brought the case is a situation where (i) the publisher had good reason to believe the material was infringing when they initially published the link (ii) the entire purpose of running the story was to encourage people to access the infringing material and (iii) when the copyright holder objected and got the original material taken down, the publisher gleefully republished an alternate link to the same material. They weren't posting personal ads for pottery enthusiasts, they were posting "if your drug dealer just got busted then try calling these ones instead". What they court is actually being asked to rule on is whether [intentionally] linking to unauthorised means of accessing copyrighted material can ever be a copyright violation, and if so, how wilful does the plaintiff have to prove the publisher's infringement was and should the plaintiff also have to prove other factors such as the linked-to copyright-violating site not being already well known to the public. The question concerns whether being one remove from the infringing content makes you immune from any threat of suit rather than who the burden of proof lies upon.