5 ms·

Such as..? Not disagreeing, but you're begging the question.

by mratzloff 13y ago

d23 13y ago
I don't see that anyone asked him a question...
- mratzloff 13y ago
  >> It has a morass of serious issues untouched by these modifications. > Such as..?
  - d23 13y ago
    Err, that's not what begging the question means. It means you are avoiding a question. I didn't realize he was using it in the colliqual way since it was kind of a strange way of using it there too (it's usually in the form "that begs the question: X?").
  - mratzloff 13y ago
    @d23: You are correct, I used "begging the question" incorrectly, raising the ire of HN language pedants everywhere. :-p
rhizome 13y ago
Raising the question, maybe. However, for instance, in the eventuality that this bill passes, it will still be illegal to link to certain content. It only touches sec. 1201.
- yew 13y ago
  I definitely wouldn't say that this bill 'fixes the DMCA', but it certainly corrects some of the most gratuitous issues. The DMCA doesn't explicitly affect linking to infringing content - that's mostly on the courts that have made that interpretation, even if the DMCA has helped to enable them. Trying to revise or remove the DMCA wholesale would be a much more difficult undertaking, and correspondingly less likely to succeed. (I recommend reading the bill to everyone, by the way. It's only five pages long.)
  - rhizome 13y ago
    The DMCA doesn't explicitly affect linking to infringing content - that's mostly on the courts that have made that interpretation, even if the DMCA has helped to enable them. Correct, the DMCA has made it possible for linking to infringements to be found illegal. This bill doesn't touch that. You can't just handwave it to the courts when the DMCA is the foundation of their opinion. The DMCA is still responsible for its unintended consequences.
    - yew 13y ago
      The DMCA is still responsible for its unintended consequences. I'm in complete agreement. But fixing that issue will be more difficult than fixing this one, in my opinion. Getting this bill passed would do some good even if it is overstating things a little.
wtallis 13y ago
The DMCA takedown procedure still gives too much power to the accuser, without sufficient penalties for improper notices. Since it implements a "guilty until proven innocent" system, there needs to be strong deterrent for false notices. Things especially need to be clarified for the case of computer-generated takedown notices - there needs to be a real person who is at real risk of disbarment or perjury charges when those notices are false positives, especially since the penalties for a false counter-notice are that harsh.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > The DMCA takedown procedure still gives too much power to the accuser, without sufficient penalties for improper notices. Since it implements a "guilty until proven innocent" system The takedown procedure is not, stricly speaking, "a guilty until proven innocent" system. Its a system that provides immunity from liability for illegally distributing copyright protected content provided that it was originally submitted by someone other than the distributor, and the distributor stopped when notified by the owner of the copyright. (It, likewise, provides immunity to the distributor for claims by the submitter for stopping distribution provided that the distributor restores the distribution once the submitter provides a counternotice.) But the takedown procedure itself doesn't create new penalties or presumptions of guilt, it just provides conditional protections from any existing penalties for certain acts provided that those acts are discontinued on specified forms of notice.
  - yew 13y ago
    The issue is that liability is in practice equivalent to a large monetary penalty because of the ease of rapid and continuous litigation. So in practice the DMCA takedown procedure provides a method of immediately (and sometimes permanently) removing content (not necessarily infringing) from any major provider. As an example, the method of removing allegedly infringing content from YouTube is not a DMCA takedown but it is a result of that mechanism.
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      > So in practice the DMCA takedown procedure provides a method of immediately (and often permanently) removing content (not necessarily infringing) from any major provider. I don't think the DMCA takedown procedure is much involved. The actual problem that causes that is the resource imbalance between content owners and individual users. Without the DMCA takedown procedure and its associated liability shields, instead you'd have content owners sending threats to sue to the content hosts, who would have to choose whether they'd like to fight the content owner or keep the affected client. With the DMCA takedown procedure, really, its exactly the same thing, except that the host has more security that they will have no liability to the purported content owner for any past distribution if they comply with the request. We know this to be true, becuase this was the situation that was occurring before the DMCA which led to the pressure from content hosts that resulted in the inclusion of the safe harbor provisions that include the "takedown procedure" and the related counter-notice restoration procedure.
SeanLuke 13y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
- Radix_ 13y ago
  Are you posting this because they used the phrase correctly?
  - asveikau 13y ago
    This leads me to an interesting idea: Perhaps any use of "begging the question", correct or incorrect, leads to this.

Such as..? Not disagreeing, but you're begging the question.

d23 13y ago

I don't see that anyone asked him a question...

mratzloff 13y ago
>> It has a morass of serious issues untouched by these modifications. > Such as..?
- d23 13y ago
  Err, that's not what begging the question means. It means you are avoiding a question. I didn't realize he was using it in the colliqual way since it was kind of a strange way of using it there too (it's usually in the form "that begs the question: X?").
- mratzloff 13y ago
  @d23: You are correct, I used "begging the question" incorrectly, raising the ire of HN language pedants everywhere. :-p

rhizome 13y ago

Raising the question, maybe. However, for instance, in the eventuality that this bill passes, it will still be illegal to link to certain content. It only touches sec. 1201.

yew 13y ago
I definitely wouldn't say that this bill 'fixes the DMCA', but it certainly corrects some of the most gratuitous issues. The DMCA doesn't explicitly affect linking to infringing content - that's mostly on the courts that have made that interpretation, even if the DMCA has helped to enable them. Trying to revise or remove the DMCA wholesale would be a much more difficult undertaking, and correspondingly less likely to succeed. (I recommend reading the bill to everyone, by the way. It's only five pages long.)
- rhizome 13y ago
  The DMCA doesn't explicitly affect linking to infringing content - that's mostly on the courts that have made that interpretation, even if the DMCA has helped to enable them. Correct, the DMCA has made it possible for linking to infringements to be found illegal. This bill doesn't touch that. You can't just handwave it to the courts when the DMCA is the foundation of their opinion. The DMCA is still responsible for its unintended consequences.
  - yew 13y ago
    The DMCA is still responsible for its unintended consequences. I'm in complete agreement. But fixing that issue will be more difficult than fixing this one, in my opinion. Getting this bill passed would do some good even if it is overstating things a little.

wtallis 13y ago

The DMCA takedown procedure still gives too much power to the accuser, without sufficient penalties for improper notices. Since it implements a "guilty until proven innocent" system, there needs to be strong deterrent for false notices. Things especially need to be clarified for the case of computer-generated takedown notices - there needs to be a real person who is at real risk of disbarment or perjury charges when those notices are false positives, especially since the penalties for a false counter-notice are that harsh.

dragonwriter 13y ago
> The DMCA takedown procedure still gives too much power to the accuser, without sufficient penalties for improper notices. Since it implements a "guilty until proven innocent" system The takedown procedure is not, stricly speaking, "a guilty until proven innocent" system. Its a system that provides immunity from liability for illegally distributing copyright protected content provided that it was originally submitted by someone other than the distributor, and the distributor stopped when notified by the owner of the copyright. (It, likewise, provides immunity to the distributor for claims by the submitter for stopping distribution provided that the distributor restores the distribution once the submitter provides a counternotice.) But the takedown procedure itself doesn't create new penalties or presumptions of guilt, it just provides conditional protections from any existing penalties for certain acts provided that those acts are discontinued on specified forms of notice.
- yew 13y ago
  The issue is that liability is in practice equivalent to a large monetary penalty because of the ease of rapid and continuous litigation. So in practice the DMCA takedown procedure provides a method of immediately (and sometimes permanently) removing content (not necessarily infringing) from any major provider. As an example, the method of removing allegedly infringing content from YouTube is not a DMCA takedown but it is a result of that mechanism.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > So in practice the DMCA takedown procedure provides a method of immediately (and often permanently) removing content (not necessarily infringing) from any major provider. I don't think the DMCA takedown procedure is much involved. The actual problem that causes that is the resource imbalance between content owners and individual users. Without the DMCA takedown procedure and its associated liability shields, instead you'd have content owners sending threats to sue to the content hosts, who would have to choose whether they'd like to fight the content owner or keep the affected client. With the DMCA takedown procedure, really, its exactly the same thing, except that the host has more security that they will have no liability to the purported content owner for any past distribution if they comply with the request. We know this to be true, becuase this was the situation that was occurring before the DMCA which led to the pressure from content hosts that resulted in the inclusion of the safe harbor provisions that include the "takedown procedure" and the related counter-notice restoration procedure.

SeanLuke 13y ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

Radix_ 13y ago
Are you posting this because they used the phrase correctly?
- asveikau 13y ago
  This leads me to an interesting idea: Perhaps any use of "begging the question", correct or incorrect, leads to this.