4 ms·
This does not sound logical at all. Suppose part of complying with DMCA requirements is to remove the offending material - are you suggesting that by being exem
by techthroway443 10y ago
This does not sound logical at all. Suppose part of complying with DMCA requirements is to remove the offending material - are you suggesting that by being exempt from having to do so they are complying with the requests?
- bmelton 10y agoThe point is that they don't have any offending material. They have links, and/or hashes; neither of which can possibly be considered 'offensive' under the current state of DMCA precedent. If the laws of their country change in a way that forces them to comply with the DMCA as it is, they're still not infringing. That they aren't obligated to comply with the DMCA as it sits is kind of irrelevant to the conversation, considering the follow-on point is also true.
- techthroway443 10y agoI think I see your point. So in order for TPB to be considered out of compliance with the DMCA there would have to be a clause in the DMCA where it clearly states that magnet links to copyrighted material are not allowed?
- bmelton 10y agoI think that either that, or deep linking would have to be outlawed, which would obviously yield questionable results.
- redthrowaway 10y agoI don't serve food to the public out of my office. Thus, I am trivially in compliance with food safety laws. Same with TPB. It hosts no content which is subject to the DMCA, and so is trivially compliant.
- techthroway443 10y agoThis is stupid. We don't store any patient data thus we are HIPPA compliant?
- redthrowaway 10y ago>This is stupid. This is not a constructive way to have a discussion, and is unwelcome on HN. >We don't store any patient data thus we are HIPPA compliant? Yes, trivially so. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuous_truth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuous_truth
- techthroway443 10y agoHow is that not considered flagrant lying? From your link: "For example, a child might tell his or her parent 'I ate every vegetable on my plate', when there were no vegetables on the child's plate to begin with."
- redthrowaway 10y agoPlease read the linked article again. Any statement made about members of the empty set is trivially true. This is also known as the Principle of Explosion[1]. It's not lying; it's formal logic. Some further reading: http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/137890/why-is-it-sensical-for-a-proposition-with-a-false-antecedent-to-validate-to-true http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/137890/why-is-it-sen... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion
- squeaky-clean 10y agoYes, exactly. And when someone tries to sue you out of existence for improperly handling patient data, responding with "Improper handling? We don't handle it at all!" is a fantastic defense. You might piss off whomever your contract is with when you tell them you've been deleting data instead of storing it, and there may be grounds for a different lawsuit. But they can't say you're not HIPPA compliant. [0] [0] I don't 100% know the specifics of HIPPA, so I'm not sure if this would really apply, because I know you need to keep detailed audits and logs of various things.