3 ms·
I don't think it's that so much as it is a way to get rid of "nuisances" like the Rapidshares and Megauploads and the PopcornTimes of the EU. They may not inher
by jstarfish 9y ago
I don't think it's that so much as it is a way to get rid of "nuisances" like the Rapidshares and Megauploads and the PopcornTimes of the EU. They may not inherently be doing anything wrong, but they're a problem for somebody powerful, so let's make sure we can find a reason to shut them down.
If it's anything like USC 2257 or obscenity law, it's a wildcard law to be played when there's no other dirt on somebody. The implementation is left intentionally vague. They won't provide you a national registry to check against, nor will they license you government software that fulfills these goals to legal specifications. It's a law they put on the books with no clear path to compliance.
So you're left to your own devices to implement something that may or may not do the job ("we checked hashes against a blacklist!")-- which you can arbitrarily be found in violation of by the courts at some later point ("...but you didn't do enough to check for derived or modified works!"), since there is no precedent for the extent to which one is expected to comply.
Nobody will be prosecuted for this until there's a high-profile site that needs a takedown.