3 ms·

> Define: "piracy". I think the definition is pretty clear in the DMCA, no need to play with words. > they should never, ever be involved in enforcement Sure

> Define: "piracy". I think the definition is pretty clear in the DMCA, no need to play with words. > they should never, ever be involved in enforcement Sure, Google should keep linking to completely illegal content, correct? Scams, CP, drugs, all belongs to Google indexes, you say. There are laws, pretty clear laws around the world. Some countries deem illegal simply linking to certain sites. Pirates might hate the new Google, but don’t act like it’s not obvious that they should do this.

gerdesj 3y ago
I'm not an American so DMCA is moot for me. I did search a bit - https://www.dmca.com/ https://www.dmca.com/ and that doesn't help. https://www.dmca.com/FAQ/What-is-DMCA https://www.dmca.com/FAQ/What-is-DMCA - better but not much. When I search for UK law stuff, it comes up on top. Your DMCA seems to hide itself somewhat.
- Kamq 3y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmca https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmca
  - gerdesj 3y ago
    So the canonical DMCA thingie is on wikipedia? Nope: https://www.dmca.com/ https://www.dmca.com/ I'm not a fan!
    - Open-Sourcery 3y ago
      https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-105publ304/pdf/PLAW-105publ304.pdf https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-105publ304/pdf/PLAW...
    - Sophira 3y ago
      That's not a "canonical" site either. That's the domain name of "Digital Millennium Copyright Act Services Ltd.", a company which deliberately (and annoyingly) takes the same name as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act for SEO purposes. They don't want you to file your own DMCA requests, even though you can. They want you to fall for their trick of searching for "DMCA", and to use their services. The canonical location to find the DMCA is the United States legislation, specifically the Statues at Large. On the other hand, the best place to find the DMCA online would probably be https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/PLAW-105publ304 https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/PLAW-105publ304 , which offers downloads in multiple formats. This is also linked from the Wikipedia article that was offered before. Always check the "External Links" and "References" sections of a Wikipedia article if you're looking for canonical sources like this!
      - Sophira 3y ago
        > specifically the Statues at Large Self-correction: I meant the "Statutes at Large". (I'd edit, but HN doesn't let you edit comments after a certain amount of time, and I only just noticed this mistake.)
soraminazuki 3y ago
> I think the definition is pretty clear in the DMCA, no need to play with words. Corporations think the definition is applicable to anything under the DMCA. They play with words all the time. > Sure, Google should keep linking to completely illegal content, correct? Scams, CP, drugs, all belongs to Google indexes, you say. Sure, Google should keep taking down content on behalf of corporations, correct? SymPy docs [1], EFF tweets [2], product reviews [3], political speech [4], films of police [5], all targets for enforcement, you say. There are abuses, pretty blatant abuses of DMCA in every corner of the internet. Most monopolistic platforms don't even get an actual human being involved to resolve issues. Corporations might love the DMCA, but don't act like criticisms against it are unfounded. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31087175 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31087175 [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19663229 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19663229 [3]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5409525 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5409525 [4]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3641094 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3641094 [5]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26082303 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26082303
- bandergirl 3y ago
  > applicable to anything under the DMCA I don’t think that blocking torrent downloads of movies is in any way interpretable. It’s illegal. Period. The rest can be debated, I’m not talking about that. > on behalf of corporations Who said that? I’m talking about illegal content. It’s on behalf of the government. The items you mentions fall into the gray area. CP and pirated movies are not in the gray area, they are not debatable. The decision has been taken and confirmed in the court of law and Google has to follow it. It’s as black and white as can be.
  - soraminazuki 3y ago
    > I don’t think that blocking torrent downloads of movies is in any way interpretable. You can't do proper enforcement without interpreting. That's logically impossible. When it comes to interpreting, Google and others have a terrible track record. > > on behalf of corporations > Who said that? That's what is happening right now under the current legal framework of big platforms being the judge, jury, and executioner. The legal framework you seem to support. > The items you mentions fall into the gray area. It's not gray. The things I mentioned, they should never have happened at all.

gerdesj 3y ago

I'm not an American so DMCA is moot for me. I did search a bit - https://www.dmca.com/ https://www.dmca.com/ and that doesn't help. https://www.dmca.com/FAQ/What-is-DMCA https://www.dmca.com/FAQ/What-is-DMCA - better but not much. When I search for UK law stuff, it comes up on top. Your DMCA seems to hide itself somewhat.

Kamq 3y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmca https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmca
- gerdesj 3y ago
  So the canonical DMCA thingie is on wikipedia? Nope: https://www.dmca.com/ https://www.dmca.com/ I'm not a fan!
  - Open-Sourcery 3y ago
    https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-105publ304/pdf/PLAW-105publ304.pdf https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-105publ304/pdf/PLAW...
  - Sophira 3y ago
    That's not a "canonical" site either. That's the domain name of "Digital Millennium Copyright Act Services Ltd.", a company which deliberately (and annoyingly) takes the same name as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act for SEO purposes. They don't want you to file your own DMCA requests, even though you can. They want you to fall for their trick of searching for "DMCA", and to use their services. The canonical location to find the DMCA is the United States legislation, specifically the Statues at Large. On the other hand, the best place to find the DMCA online would probably be https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/PLAW-105publ304 https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/PLAW-105publ304 , which offers downloads in multiple formats. This is also linked from the Wikipedia article that was offered before. Always check the "External Links" and "References" sections of a Wikipedia article if you're looking for canonical sources like this!
    - Sophira 3y ago
      > specifically the Statues at Large Self-correction: I meant the "Statutes at Large". (I'd edit, but HN doesn't let you edit comments after a certain amount of time, and I only just noticed this mistake.)

soraminazuki 3y ago

> I think the definition is pretty clear in the DMCA, no need to play with words. Corporations think the definition is applicable to anything under the DMCA. They play with words all the time. > Sure, Google should keep linking to completely illegal content, correct? Scams, CP, drugs, all belongs to Google indexes, you say. Sure, Google should keep taking down content on behalf of corporations, correct? SymPy docs [1], EFF tweets [2], product reviews [3], political speech [4], films of police [5], all targets for enforcement, you say. There are abuses, pretty blatant abuses of DMCA in every corner of the internet. Most monopolistic platforms don't even get an actual human being involved to resolve issues. Corporations might love the DMCA, but don't act like criticisms against it are unfounded. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31087175 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31087175 [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19663229 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19663229 [3]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5409525 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5409525 [4]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3641094 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3641094 [5]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26082303 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26082303

bandergirl 3y ago
> applicable to anything under the DMCA I don’t think that blocking torrent downloads of movies is in any way interpretable. It’s illegal. Period. The rest can be debated, I’m not talking about that. > on behalf of corporations Who said that? I’m talking about illegal content. It’s on behalf of the government. The items you mentions fall into the gray area. CP and pirated movies are not in the gray area, they are not debatable. The decision has been taken and confirmed in the court of law and Google has to follow it. It’s as black and white as can be.
- soraminazuki 3y ago
  > I don’t think that blocking torrent downloads of movies is in any way interpretable. You can't do proper enforcement without interpreting. That's logically impossible. When it comes to interpreting, Google and others have a terrible track record. > > on behalf of corporations > Who said that? That's what is happening right now under the current legal framework of big platforms being the judge, jury, and executioner. The legal framework you seem to support. > The items you mentions fall into the gray area. It's not gray. The things I mentioned, they should never have happened at all.