Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirty Dane
I never said or claimed that TOS as a contract supercedes all legal liability. That is a strawman argument from your side, so you can argue against things I didn't say or mean. This is not about the weight of laws, but the laws themselves and what they cover. If the weight (your argument) is final, then everything would be legal in countries having constitutional free speech. But it doesn't work that way, the constitutional weight is not final, it also gives access for laws to override it, the same way laws weight are not final but give access to design terms and policy.
|
that the stupidest statement you have every made, so everything including shit that is illegal on it face would be legal if free speech exists
Bullshit
I am saying the exact opposite and your trying to misrepresent
The reason you can take down kiddie porn is without incurring a civil liablity BECAUSE A LAW SAYS IT ILLEGAL.
The same is not true with copyright infringement there is a very specific set of rules you have to follow and that is a valid notice, with the appripriate counter notice ability to happen.
NAT WOULD BE WILLFULLY VIOLATING THAT PROCESS, by taking the content down for TOS only reason. That would make them liable if it violated free speech.
Quote:
|
What I say is, the TOS can be used as a contract to prevent things that is not unlawful in the first place, but things that are inappropriate, off-topic or non-beneficial etc for your business or organization can be prevented. Laws supercede TOS, but if there is no law, then that argument become pointless. The only thing left is policy and that's what OP question.
|
ok and if the sky was pink it wouldn't be blue
what does a fabricated case that has already been proven to not exist here, 3 examples where the laws could be violated, each with civil liablities, hell even when you deliberately limited the scope to an insane level i documented a potential violation of discrimination laws.
Quote:
|
If you claim and state one policy, but act different and refering to non-existant laws (the weight of laws is pointless argument), then there is a reason to question that policy. If DMCA doesn't prevent you from removing the inappropriate, off-topic or non-beneficial without losing safe harbor, then it doesn't prevent you from removing the appropriate, on-topic or beneficial. Like I said, you can't have it both ways...
|
bullshit
When you for example take down kiddie porn you are giving up the safe harbor provision of the DMCA and justifying your actions using the child pornography laws. You trade one immunity (takedown/counternotice process )for a legally justified reason for removal (it violates kiddie porn laws).
Your saying give up the safe harbor to hide behind, NOTHING.
That the point, you want NAT to remove all the content, including stuff that could be 100% authorized, either by the copyright holder, or by fair use.