4 ms·

Yes, you could be held legally responsible. Do you have the funds to mount a reasonable defense if you were to be prosecuted? Would a negative outcome signific

Yes, you could be held legally responsible. Do you have the funds to mount a reasonable defense if you were to be prosecuted? Would a negative outcome significantly impact your life? If you can’t afford to fight it don’t risk it

vel0city 9y ago
IANAL, but from my understanding of the DMCA Safe Habor provisions it could be very tricky to hold a host responsible for data stored on their servers unknowingly. However, once they find out about the file's illegality, they must act or then they become liable. Amazon is not immediately liable if someone uploads illegal files to S3.
- xur17 9y ago
  My understanding is that you have to register a DMCA notification agent in order to be eligible for DMCA Safe Harbor: http://www.haynesboone.com/alerts/dmca-safe-harbor-protection http://www.haynesboone.com/alerts/dmca-safe-harbor-protectio...
- albertgoeswoof 9y ago
  The GP just incriminated themselves now though I.e. “The defendant installed software that they knew could be used to store illegal materials, proceeded to profit off it, and did not put any protections in place to try to limit this” For some judges that’s all they’d need to hear. Amazon have lawyers and essentially an endless budget, processes and teams to defend their position and support law enforcement, they have no trouble defending themselves, but an individual could find themselves in a really tough position.
  - Nuzzerino 9y ago
    There needs to be a point at which one can reasonably determine that someone has done everything they possibly can, short of not running the node, to keep illegal content off of their machines. I don't think the only solution need be to abstain from using the system. This is an age-old problem, almost as old as the Internet itself.
    - albertgoeswoof 9y ago
      Completely agree
regulation_d 9y ago
IANAL, but these statements seem to fly in the face of the general requirement that a actor must have the requisite mens rea to commit a crime. There certainly are exceptions to the mens rea requirement, but it seems like if you're making a conclusory statement like "Yes, you could be held legally responsible.", then you should provide some reasoning for why that would be the case.
- sowbug 9y ago
  There's contributory infringement in copyright law, but copyright law is so far out of balance these days that I'm hesitant to draw an inference from it. This otherwise sounds like worrying that you'll be charged with armed robbery because the robbers threw their gun onto your lawn while escaping the cops. Yeah, sure, that could happen, but only through a series of factual misunderstandings about who did what, not because you actually committed a crime.
jessriedel 9y ago
Source?

vel0city 9y ago

IANAL, but from my understanding of the DMCA Safe Habor provisions it could be very tricky to hold a host responsible for data stored on their servers unknowingly. However, once they find out about the file's illegality, they must act or then they become liable. Amazon is not immediately liable if someone uploads illegal files to S3.

xur17 9y ago
My understanding is that you have to register a DMCA notification agent in order to be eligible for DMCA Safe Harbor: http://www.haynesboone.com/alerts/dmca-safe-harbor-protection http://www.haynesboone.com/alerts/dmca-safe-harbor-protectio...
albertgoeswoof 9y ago
The GP just incriminated themselves now though I.e. “The defendant installed software that they knew could be used to store illegal materials, proceeded to profit off it, and did not put any protections in place to try to limit this” For some judges that’s all they’d need to hear. Amazon have lawyers and essentially an endless budget, processes and teams to defend their position and support law enforcement, they have no trouble defending themselves, but an individual could find themselves in a really tough position.
- Nuzzerino 9y ago
  There needs to be a point at which one can reasonably determine that someone has done everything they possibly can, short of not running the node, to keep illegal content off of their machines. I don't think the only solution need be to abstain from using the system. This is an age-old problem, almost as old as the Internet itself.
  - albertgoeswoof 9y ago
    Completely agree

regulation_d 9y ago

IANAL, but these statements seem to fly in the face of the general requirement that a actor must have the requisite mens rea to commit a crime. There certainly are exceptions to the mens rea requirement, but it seems like if you're making a conclusory statement like "Yes, you could be held legally responsible.", then you should provide some reasoning for why that would be the case.

sowbug 9y ago
There's contributory infringement in copyright law, but copyright law is so far out of balance these days that I'm hesitant to draw an inference from it. This otherwise sounds like worrying that you'll be charged with armed robbery because the robbers threw their gun onto your lawn while escaping the cops. Yeah, sure, that could happen, but only through a series of factual misunderstandings about who did what, not because you actually committed a crime.

jessriedel 9y ago

Source?