4 ms·
Anyone could copy-paste a news article verbatim. That's a copyright violation, and without a DMCA policy like this Y Combinator is by default liable for the inf
by dpe82 14y ago
Anyone could copy-paste a news article verbatim. That's a copyright violation, and without a DMCA policy like this Y Combinator is by default liable for the infringement.
The DMCA policy and registered agent gives a content creator a method to notify Y Combinator of the violation so YC can take it down. How else would they know who to contact or how to protect their rights?
If a site has a proper policy and agent (and abides by the policy) it gets safe harbor - it's not liable for the infringement. It's not an unreasonable amount of effort, and the scheme is a pretty decent compromise between protecting copyright holders rights and allowing user generated content.
- devcpp 14y ago>Anyone could copy-paste a news article verbatim. Yes, andrewljohnson agrees about that. However, his point is: >Linking to copyrighted material should not be illegal And I have to concur. This should not be a copyright violation.
- frio 14y agoSo... what of TPB? All they do is link to copyright material; none if it's hosted there.
- BCM43 14y agoTPB is legal. And they don't even link to copyrighted material, they link to a swarm from which you can git information on where to download copyrighted material.
- devcpp 14y agoIt was implied 'link to legally copyrighted material'...
- rmc 14y agoThe Pirate Bay does not have to worry about the DMCA, they were originally (are?) hosted in Sweden, and US law like the DMCA doesn't apply there.
- flyinRyan 14y agoWhy on earth should TPB be illegal! You know, not every torrent on there is illegal.
- evanhr 14y agoAbsolutely agree that it's entirely reasonable to comply with the requirements of 512(c) to get the safe harbor, but to pick a couple of nits: 1. Copying a news article is likely to be infringing, but it might not be; it's always worth considering whether it's a fair use, especially for very factual material. 2. More importantly, it's not that HN would be liable "by default". Without the safe harbor, they would be open to claims of secondary liability, but the copyright holder would still have to prove the elements of contributory, vicarious, or "inducement" infringement. Again, still worth it to be able to avoid lawsuits or at least dispose of them at an early stage, but the risk isn't automatic, full liability for the hosting site.