3 ms·

> 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. T

> 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.

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.