3 ms·
But knowingly looking the other way makes me uncomfortable - "knowingly looking the other way" is what is really involved here. Legal issues aside, there is an
by startingup 18y ago
But knowingly looking the other way makes me uncomfortable - "knowingly looking the other way" is what is really involved here. Legal issues aside, there is an ethical question involved (regardless of your opinion of RIAA). Civil disobedience is one thing, but profit motive and civil disobedience don't mix.
That's one reason I have stayed away from companies with business models like this.
- LogicHoleFlaw 18y agoI think the difference here is that civil disobedience involves breaking the law in order to uphold some moral standard. Under the current copyright law's safe harbor provisions, no law is being broken by a service provider who is willfully, evenly blind and non-encouraging to the infringements by individual users so long as the provider complies with takedown notices. Knowingly waiting for and responding to the notices is what is required by the law. I choose not to see it as "looking the other way" any more than google or youtube is looking the other way. The current copyright regime is unsustainable in this digital age. RIAA/MPAA tactics are unconscionable. There must be a better system. I think there are both ethical and business advantages to being part of the solution rather than just shying away from the problem. I think that avoiding developing a promising technology like justin.tv just because users can potentially use it to infringe copyright is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.