Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirty Dane
Yes, it's bullshit, and that's what I'm trying to tell you. It's only the words in the law that tells you what you can or can't. The weight does not tell you that. It's YOUR logic: "Because law weight higher than TOS..". Wrong. If there is no law, then weight doesn't count for anything. Same with the constitution vs law: You can't say a law is unconstitional if there are no constitution... ..got it?
|
so your arguement is never right because it based on non existant situation
if we lived in a world where no constitution existed no TOS would be unconstitutional,
if we lived in a world where there were no anti-discrimination laws no TOS would be discrimintory.
Problem is that world doesn't exist
laws exist, the constitution does not exist, your trying to argue that even though the laws DOES exist, it should not apply. There is a huge difference and priority or "weight" clearly count in the real world case
Quote:
Correct. But if there were no law against it, then you couldn't say a law supercede your TOS. You can still disallow it in your TOS...
got it?
|
there is always a law against it, becaue your TOS is defined by contract law, the principle of law that allow you to sue for disputes in contracts. and those laws are bound by the constitution, which defines what type of laws congress can make.
again your not argueing the existance of a law, your argueing weather a law that exist APPLIES
but your using the impossible condition that the law does not exist at all as a justification for your bogus arguement.
Yes you would be right if we lived in a world where no constitution existed, no laws exist, but if that were the case copyright laws would exist anyway and nat could do whatever the fuck he wants.
Given the fact that copyright act does exist, two laws always exist against TOS (fair use under the copyright act, and free speech part of the constitution that defends free speech).
while you might be able to argue those laws do not apply to your TOS, you would still have to spend the money to make that arguement and that is a liablity.
Quote:
|
Wrong. That argument is only valid if he state the reason is infringement. He can still remove for ANOTHER reasons without losing safe harbor. If that weren't the case, then his sites would be flooded with spam and Youtube would be flooded with porn.
|
what the fuck are you talking about have you every disputed a wrongfully banned account
every single video that is removed has a reason beside it
to successfully get the account back you have to prove every single one of those reasons is wrong, or that they allowed something equally (in which case the reason is discrimintory)
having to have a legitimate reason doesn't create a situation where you can't stop porn from being posted on youtube, porn is a valid reason for stopping content as long as you apply that rule to every every single time . Allow one guy to post porn, and your going to get your ass sued for discriminiation when you remove someone elses porn.
IT not discrimination if you universally apply the rules.
That being said, just because you don't want to universally apply the rule doesn't make it wrong. Any tube site could restrict itself to only showing 2 minute clips, and use "bigger than 2 minutes = gone"
Quote:
Taking down child pornography neutralize DMCA. You are required to do so by law. But DMCA doesn't neutralize you from removing content for another reasons than infringements. If you disallow underage content that is not illegal, you can still TOS away that content, even if the uploader didn't make an infringement, and without losing safe harbor.
Like I said, you can't have it both. I'm not telling anyone what to do, I'm telling what you can and can't.
|
your trying to make if A >B then A must be < B arguement.
but that is totally wrong.
look in every case you choose to remove the content for a non take down case you lose the safe harbor provision, in fact the act defines the safe harbor as a protection granted if you follow certain rules.
In your kiddie porn case you don't care about giving up that protection, because the actual criminal law gives you the cover instead. Your basically trading one form of cover for another.
When you take down non takedown (false takedown request happen all the time so you can use the word infringing) just for TOS violation, you lose the safe harbor and don't replace it with anything. Ergo you create a potential liablity for yourself.
Even no porn, nothing over 2 minutes any restriction creates a potential liablity, the biggest one being discrimination that one is avoided by always treating everyone exactly the same way (which is why i can say 1 example of letting a video up by youtube proves it is there policy not to remove all the videos of an account, if they did do it sometimes only their ass would lose a discrimination case the second they choose to remove the content of a visible minority).
Discrimination laws is nasty, you don't have to prove that reason they treated you differently was because you were a hahahahahaha if you did no one would get convicted of the crime since a bigot could simply lie and make up a "i don't like you reason" for discrimination and get away scott free.
Under anti discrimination law all i have to do is prove that i am a visible minority, and you treated me different than a non minority and you lose.
That why eharmony lost their 2 million dollar case, even though they had a really good, non discrimintory reason for the different treatment (we can't make money given the population size) they were forced to create a money losing dating site, just to comply with the law.