5 ms·
I think Google and other web companies are opposed because it will create potentially significant administration burden for them. That is probably not the only
by jcrites 15y ago
I think Google and other web companies are opposed because it will create potentially significant administration burden for them.
That is probably not the only reason, but I suspect it is sufficient reason for most opposition.
- thebigshane 15y agoThe bill does apparently say that it does not force US based sites, ISPs, Name servers to change their current operations. NO TECHNOLOGY MANDATES.—Nothing in title I shall be construed to impose a duty on an en- tity described in section 102(c) or 103(c) to design its network, technology, or service to forestall or pre- vent acts that would actually or potentially create a cause of action under such title, or to utilize any particular type of technology to comply with the re- quirements of such title. Perhaps someone else can shine some light in how Google could still be victim to increased administrative burden.
- adgar 15y agoWhen I read that paragraph as a layman, I read two points: 1. A US entity does not have to redesign anything to slow or prevent infringing search results/credit card payments/etc in order to avoid liability 2. No particular type of technology must be utilized to comply: they're explicitly saying they won't require firms to "use PiracyBlocker2001 on your network" or "filter search results with the ProtectLouisVuittonsProfitMargin algorithm" or something to that effect.