Quote:
|
This law gives anyone who uses false information to get a site shut down immunity from getting sued or held responsible for their false accusation. Read the bill, it's in there. Can you really support that? Seriously?
|
Quote:
SEC. 104. IMMUNITY FOR TAKING VOLUNTARY ACTION AGAINST SITES DEDICATED TO THEFT OF U.S. PROPERTY.
No cause of action shall lie in any Federal or State court or administrative agency against, no person may rely in any claim or cause of action against, and no liability for damages to any person shall be granted against, a service provider, payment network provider, Internet advertising service, advertiser, Internet search engine, domain name registry, or domain name registrar for taking any action described in section 102(c)(2), section 103(d)(2), or section 103(b) with respect to an Internet site, or otherwise voluntarily blocking access to or ending financial affiliation with an Internet site, in the reasonable belief that--
(1) the Internet site is a foreign infringing site or is an Internet site dedicated to theft of U.S. property; and
(2) the action is consistent with the entity?s terms of service or other contractual rights.
|
The party making the allegations of copyright violation are not given immunity from damages. Only those who act on those allegations in good faith are given immunity.
Therefore, if you make false accusations against a website that has all legal content, you may be sued for damages by those adversely affected.
Sounds reasonable to me.
Just my opinion.
