Quote:
Originally Posted by Nautilus
When I'm saying the domain name owner should be fully responsible for everything that appears whithin the domain name he owns, it is too far reaching to say that I'm oppressing either free speech or fair use rights.
When the DMCA was written such things as youtube and the likes didn't even exist, and the safe harbor was put in place with clearly hosting service providers in mind, which do not operate websites, do not modify content, do not have editorial policy etc etc and are basically a neutral services that do not interfere with anything at the website except that they can decide whether to accept it as a client or not - not UCG sites which are fully in control of what's going on at their sites and do not meet the IPS criterias except that maybe in some instances content is really uploaded by users, not by the site owners themselves.
DMCA clearly aims to make fair use possible by providing safe harbor to ISPs and counter notification right to their users - but never do I see it trying to facilitate the fair use by trying to prevent the "economical censorship".
|
except you are not talking about applying this penalty when the content is proven to be uploaded by the employee only but in all case including when it is being uploaded by the end users.
I know this because the law currently give safe harbor protection for employee authorized/uploaded content. Prove that employee of the company either actively recruited people to infringe, or did the infringing themselves and the safe harbor does not apply now. You don't have to make a change to the law to have that happen so the very act of talking about changing the law proves you are talking about creating "economic censorship".