3 ms·

> If they want Safe Harbor protection under the DMCA they have to honor the request. They shouldn't want safe harbor then.

• anonymousab 12y ago
  Then they are the target, and will incur many costs. Fine once, maybe, but what about the tenth time? The hundredth? The thousandth? It's like wanting Google to be the legal shield for everyone committing copyright infringement on their sites. It's not remotely economically feasible.
  • maddev 12y ago
    > It's like wanting Google to be the legal shield for everyone committing copyright infringement on their sites. It's not remotely economically feasible. Watching a little bit of youtube in say e.g. Germany might change your mind. Right now the opposite is the case, Google is acting as an illegal minion who censors arbitrary videos by order of anyone who has some cash.
• akerl_ 12y ago
  Not having safe harbor would mean that if anybody posted content to GitHub that did violate copyright, GitHub would be liable and would end up having to fight in court. Even if they won, they would be expending massive amounts of money and effort fighting copyright battles. These battles wouldn't even be fought "on behalf of their users", because the entities taking them to court would also be taking the end users to court.
• rmc 12y ago
  Without safe harbour GitHub could be sued for any copyright infringment that any of their millions (?) of users do. It would be a terrible business decision to give up safe harbour.