5 ms·

I'm not a lawyer, but it certainly sounds like his examples fit. Here's the text: [A site is illegal if] the U.S.-directed site is primarily designed or

I'm not a lawyer, but it certainly sounds like his examples fit. Here's the text: [A site is illegal if] the U.S.-directed site is primarily designed or operated for the purpose of, has only limited purpose or use other than, or is marketed by its operator or another acting in concert with that operator for use in, offering goods or services in a manner that engages in, enables, or facilitates [various illegal stuff] Group it according to the boolen ORs in there: the U.S.-directed site is ( primarily designed or operated for the purpose of, has only limited purpose or use other than, or is marketed by its operator or another acting in concert with that operator for use in, ) offering goods or services in a manner that ( engages in, enables, or facilitates ) Now choose one of each from the OR'ed groups: the U.S.-directed site is ( *** primarily designed or operated for the purpose of, has only limited purpose or use other than, or is marketed by its operator or another acting in concert with that operator for use in, ) offering goods or services in a manner that ( engages in, enables, *** or facilitates ) And we get: [A site is illegal if] the U.S.-directed site is primarily designed or operated for the purpose of, offering goods or services in a manner that facilitates [various illegal stuff] Youtube is primarily designed for the purpose of offering a service: uploading videos. This service (uploading videos) facilitates various illegal stuff (like copyright infringement).

tzs 15y ago
Your second left parenthesis belongs one line higher. A more clear way to read it is to write out four copies of it, and then in the first copy delete or clauses 2, 3, and 4. In the second copy delete or clauses 1, 3, and 4, and so on. That gives a separate complete sentence for each of the four ways you can run afoul of that section: A site is illegal if] the U.S.-directed site is primarily designed for use in offering goods or services in a manner that engages in, enables, or facilitates... A site is illegal if] the U.S.-directed site is operated for the purpose of offering goods or services in a manner that engages in, enables, or facilitates... A site is illegal if] the U.S.-directed site has only limited purpose or use other than offering goods or services in a manner that engages in, enables, or facilitates... A site is illegal if] the U.S.-directed site is marketed by its operator or another acting in concert with that operator for use in offering goods or services in a manner that engages in, enables, or facilitates... YouTube fails to fall under the first because it is not primarily designed to engage in, enable, or facilitate infringing. It fails to fall under the second because it is not operated for those purposes. It fails to fall under the third because although it does get used for the prohibit activities, it has substantial legitimate use. It fails to fall under the fourth because Google does not market it as an infringing tool--indeed, they discourage infringement. The section that YouTube (and Reddit, and most other legitimate sites with user content) are in danger of running afoul of is the section that says a US-directed site is a site dedicated to the theft of US property if it: is taking, or has taken, deliberate actions to avoid confirming a high probability of the use of the U.S.-directed site to carry out acts that constitute a violation of section 501 or 1201 of title 17, United States Code Some think this will requires the sites to put a lot of effort into actively monitoring user generated content and taking down things that might be illegal, as opposed to current law where they have only have to deal with things specifically brought to their notice via a DMCA notification. The section is sufficiently unclear that that is a reasonable reading of it.
- zmmmmm 15y ago
  > YouTube fails to fall under the first because it is not primarily designed to engage in, enable, or facilitate infringing Why does everyone keep leaving out the crucial "in a manner" words? Read it carefully with emphasis on those words: A site is illegal if] the U.S.-directed site is primarily designed for use in offering goods or services IN A MANNER that engages in, enables, or facilitates... It doesn't matter what the site is primarily designed to do, if it executes that purpose in a manner that facilitates bad things then it falls under the definition.
  - tzs 15y ago
    "In a manner that" modifies "offering goods or services". The structure of this is: The site is illegal if it is primarily designed for use in X where X is "offering goods or services in a manner that engages in, enables, or facilitates...".
    - zmmmmm 15y ago
      I agree you can read it that way, but it doesn't change much to me. Any site that accepts user content as its main function still has a primary purpose that enables / facilitates the infringement.
      - sunir 15y ago
        A theoretical parsing of the sentence does not matter. When tested in court, a reasonable reading of the law would not find YouTube in violation. The clear intention of the Act is to burn down sites whose primary purpose is theft of U.S. property, like The Pirate Bay. The problem is that is YouTube today. A lot of people forget that YouTube built its initial audience by "primarily" being flooded with pirated anime clips. Even if YouTube did not want to be a haven of copyright infringement, it users did. It would be easily arguable that YouTube would violate the law when it first started.
        meric 15y ago

tzs 15y ago

Your second left parenthesis belongs one line higher. A more clear way to read it is to write out four copies of it, and then in the first copy delete or clauses 2, 3, and 4. In the second copy delete or clauses 1, 3, and 4, and so on. That gives a separate complete sentence for each of the four ways you can run afoul of that section: A site is illegal if] the U.S.-directed site is primarily designed for use in offering goods or services in a manner that engages in, enables, or facilitates... A site is illegal if] the U.S.-directed site is operated for the purpose of offering goods or services in a manner that engages in, enables, or facilitates... A site is illegal if] the U.S.-directed site has only limited purpose or use other than offering goods or services in a manner that engages in, enables, or facilitates... A site is illegal if] the U.S.-directed site is marketed by its operator or another acting in concert with that operator for use in offering goods or services in a manner that engages in, enables, or facilitates... YouTube fails to fall under the first because it is not primarily designed to engage in, enable, or facilitate infringing. It fails to fall under the second because it is not operated for those purposes. It fails to fall under the third because although it does get used for the prohibit activities, it has substantial legitimate use. It fails to fall under the fourth because Google does not market it as an infringing tool--indeed, they discourage infringement. The section that YouTube (and Reddit, and most other legitimate sites with user content) are in danger of running afoul of is the section that says a US-directed site is a site dedicated to the theft of US property if it: is taking, or has taken, deliberate actions to avoid confirming a high probability of the use of the U.S.-directed site to carry out acts that constitute a violation of section 501 or 1201 of title 17, United States Code Some think this will requires the sites to put a lot of effort into actively monitoring user generated content and taking down things that might be illegal, as opposed to current law where they have only have to deal with things specifically brought to their notice via a DMCA notification. The section is sufficiently unclear that that is a reasonable reading of it.

zmmmmm 15y ago
> YouTube fails to fall under the first because it is not primarily designed to engage in, enable, or facilitate infringing Why does everyone keep leaving out the crucial "in a manner" words? Read it carefully with emphasis on those words: A site is illegal if] the U.S.-directed site is primarily designed for use in offering goods or services IN A MANNER that engages in, enables, or facilitates... It doesn't matter what the site is primarily designed to do, if it executes that purpose in a manner that facilitates bad things then it falls under the definition.
- tzs 15y ago
  "In a manner that" modifies "offering goods or services". The structure of this is: The site is illegal if it is primarily designed for use in X where X is "offering goods or services in a manner that engages in, enables, or facilitates...".
  - zmmmmm 15y ago
    I agree you can read it that way, but it doesn't change much to me. Any site that accepts user content as its main function still has a primary purpose that enables / facilitates the infringement.
    - sunir 15y ago
      A theoretical parsing of the sentence does not matter. When tested in court, a reasonable reading of the law would not find YouTube in violation. The clear intention of the Act is to burn down sites whose primary purpose is theft of U.S. property, like The Pirate Bay. The problem is that is YouTube today. A lot of people forget that YouTube built its initial audience by "primarily" being flooded with pirated anime clips. Even if YouTube did not want to be a haven of copyright infringement, it users did. It would be easily arguable that YouTube would violate the law when it first started.
      - meric 15y ago