4 ms·
I think that's more where this legislation is coming from. Some people have built a business on aggregating links or embeddings of copyrighted material and thos
by titanomachy 11y ago
I think that's more where this legislation is coming from. Some people have built a business on aggregating links or embeddings of copyrighted material and those sites always use the legal defense of "we don't host any of the content so it's not our problem." I imagine this is very frustrating to copyright holders, so it's reasonable that they would seek redress of some kind.
Of course, making any copyright-infringing link illegal would be far too heavy-handed, but I don't think that's a likely decision here.
- dsp1234 11y agoIf someone published only the names and addresses of known drug dealers in a phone book, the publisher still wouldn't be responsible for any drug deals.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- Retric 11y agoAiding and abetting is a federal statute in the US, so I don't think that would be considered 100% OK. The evidence must show beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted with the knowledge and intention of helping that person commit [specify crime charged]. http://www3.ce9.uscourts.gov/jury-instructions/node/367 http://www3.ce9.uscourts.gov/jury-instructions/node/367 PS: A more interesting question is if saying we don't host Hollywood crap if you want that go to [the pirate bay] without linking to any specific material.
- hueving 11y agoIf they put it under a section titled "drug dealers", then it would probably be a problem.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- dTal 11y agoThe elephant in the room is that Google actually do host copyrighted content on YouTube (which is its primary use case), but they're so big they're untouchable. Let's go after the big guys before the little guys, eh?
- shaftway 11y ago[citation needed]