3 ms·

An example closer to home is those file sharing sites that allow you to pay to "download faster" which skirt very close to the line, if not go over it. But Gro

by bombcar 8mo ago

An example closer to home is those file sharing sites that allow you to pay to "download faster" which skirt very close to the line, if not go over it. But Grokster et al openly advertised that you could get all music "for free". Where the gray area is would be something that arguably can ONLY be used for piracy (an example of what this would be is hard to imagine, but maybe a device that can ONLY duplicate encrypted blurays and cannot do it for non-encrypted ones - yes I know there are arguments even here via fair use/backup/personal copy) and/or something that is substantially advertised as for piracy - something that nobody would have a reason to buy unless they were pirating, perhaps - something where free/open source similar software exists but can't be used to pirate?

Imustaskforhelp 8mo ago
> An example closer to home is those file sharing sites that allow you to pay to "download faster" which skirt very close to the line, if not go over it. I know some file sharing sites do ip logging so if DMCA strikes happen, they can simply ban the ip too. Is there anything tangetially important to these file sharing sites too after this decision by Supreme Court? I can imagine that as long as they operate legal things as well and dont do things under the intention of just being used for piracy (from their sides but we all know the reality) Then, they don't have to do anything other than just accepting the DMCA notice. There are definitely server providers who are more privacy oriented while being affordable who only get involved not even with DMCA but rather some court ruling within their specific country which can be permissive. So is it possible for now for a file sharing provider to say that we follow the DMCA but only if you can get it written from a local judge that we will remove these files for the purposes of Privacy for our end users?

by bombcar 8mo ago

Imustaskforhelp 8mo ago

> An example closer to home is those file sharing sites that allow you to pay to "download faster" which skirt very close to the line, if not go over it. I know some file sharing sites do ip logging so if DMCA strikes happen, they can simply ban the ip too. Is there anything tangetially important to these file sharing sites too after this decision by Supreme Court? I can imagine that as long as they operate legal things as well and dont do things under the intention of just being used for piracy (from their sides but we all know the reality) Then, they don't have to do anything other than just accepting the DMCA notice. There are definitely server providers who are more privacy oriented while being affordable who only get involved not even with DMCA but rather some court ruling within their specific country which can be permissive. So is it possible for now for a file sharing provider to say that we follow the DMCA but only if you can get it written from a local judge that we will remove these files for the purposes of Privacy for our end users?