3 ms·
By my reading, a website would just need to be dual purpose to be protected. They could sell pirate bay hats and eye patches.
by aneth 16y ago
By my reading, a website would just need to be dual purpose to be protected. They could sell pirate bay hats and eye patches.
- hartror 16y agoWho decides that? Where is the line drawn? What is the appeals process? How much is it going to cost to appeal (lawyers etc)? This is censorship and it is a slippery slope, trust me I'm Australian we are unfortunately all to familiar with censorship. :(
- aneth 16y agoI don't mean to say it's ok to pass - just that it seems easy to circumvent: A Web site is in danger of having its domain seized (or having U.S. Internet providers encounter a sudden case of amnesia when their customers try to visit it) if it is "primarily designed" and "has no demonstrable, commercially significant purpose or use other than" offering or providing access to unauthorized copies of copyrighted works.