3 ms·

Their arguments in that statement are: 1) copyright infringement, 2) putting innocent people in danger. The first point is debatable, does that mean the NY Tim

Their arguments in that statement are: 1) copyright infringement, 2) putting innocent people in danger. The first point is debatable, does that mean the NY Times is unable to use their service? As an ISP will they roll over at the first cease-and-desist order from some copyright lawyer? (Of course they will.) Point two is absolute conjecture. Amazon is in no position to know who is being put in danger by these documents, let alone what innocent person is in danger by not releasing them. Furthermore, WikiLeaks has already addressed these criticisms, they are already redacting such information and the government has not pointed to a single case where some one has been harmed because of a release. It's their servers, they can do with them what they want. But let's not pretend they are a viable solution for any company that has any potential for legal conflict. And in this day and age, that's every company.

eli 16y ago
"But let's not pretend they are a viable solution for any company that has any potential for legal conflict." And why should they be? Amazon isn't your lawyer and you shouldn't expect them to defend you against legal threats. Just figuring out whether the threat is credible or not would likely cost Amazon more than they'd ever make in profit for hosting your site.
- marcusbooster 16y ago
  I agree, they're not my lawyer, they're my hosting company. If there's a legal conflict then it should use the court system that has been established to handle such disputes. If Amazon is a de facto agent of the complainant then to answer the original article's question: Can we use them to host free speech? Then I think the answer is no. Which begs the question, if Amazon can't be used to host free speech, what other kind of speech is worth hosting?
davewiner 16y ago
The DMCA was put in place to deal with the copyright issue, so Amazon was covered. No one could hold them liable for copyright infringement. The putting innocent people in danger argument, if they really made that argument, is a ridiculous standard. Almost anything can put innocent people in danger.

eli 16y ago

"But let's not pretend they are a viable solution for any company that has any potential for legal conflict." And why should they be? Amazon isn't your lawyer and you shouldn't expect them to defend you against legal threats. Just figuring out whether the threat is credible or not would likely cost Amazon more than they'd ever make in profit for hosting your site.

marcusbooster 16y ago
I agree, they're not my lawyer, they're my hosting company. If there's a legal conflict then it should use the court system that has been established to handle such disputes. If Amazon is a de facto agent of the complainant then to answer the original article's question: Can we use them to host free speech? Then I think the answer is no. Which begs the question, if Amazon can't be used to host free speech, what other kind of speech is worth hosting?

davewiner 16y ago

The DMCA was put in place to deal with the copyright issue, so Amazon was covered. No one could hold them liable for copyright infringement. The putting innocent people in danger argument, if they really made that argument, is a ridiculous standard. Almost anything can put innocent people in danger.