3 ms·
In this case, I think the reason their plausible deniability goes out the window is the pre-configured options to search for illegal content. It'll be interest
by ocdtrekkie 7y ago
In this case, I think the reason their plausible deniability goes out the window is the pre-configured options to search for illegal content.
It'll be interesting to see if removing those files from Popcorn Time does, in fact, get them reinstated.
- Thorentis 7y agoThis is (legally) a fair point. If you're linking to illegal content then perhaps that is grounds under this particular ruling for a takedown. In general though, I object to links themselves being illegal content. If you give somebody the phone number of a drug dealer, can you be charged with selling or distribution of drugs?
- ocdtrekkie 7y agoThe law fundamentally builds on the concept of intent: Did I give you Steve's phone number, or did I give you the phone number of Steve, my drug dealer, because you were interested in buying drugs from him. Criminal law depends on both the actual act, and the intention to commit a crime. That's why most technical workarounds people claim should exempt them from the law tend to not work: The intent is the same. Disclaimer: I do not actually have a drug dealer named Steve.
- Thorentis 7y agoProving intent is the most difficult part of criminal law. If intent was all that mattered, why does Google remove copyrighted links from its search results? The intent for Google clearly isn't to distribute illegal content, but to provide links to as much as possible on the web (or at least, it used to be). But even DDG compiles with DMCA. A generic search engine is still required by law to take down links, even if the intent isn't there. Which proves that the mere act of "handing over a phone number" is enough.