Most of tne arguments against the bill make sense - if you haven't read the bill and don't know what it says. Fortunately, this isn't Obamacare, so we don't have to pass the bill to see what's in it. It's not a 2700 page monstrosity, but a regular bill of a few pages. You can read it and see that most of the anti arguments are based on misinformation about what it actually says.
For example, this makes perfect sense until you actually read the bill, or a reasonable summary of it:
Quote:
Originally Posted by d-null
how about all pictures and avatars, etc? will forums have to be "text only" as the owners would have no other way of ensuring that every single pic used has the proper licensing?
|
As a matter fact, the law does not apply to forums like this one at all. The text of the bill says that in order to be affected, a site must consist of basically nothing but infringement. Since this sure has discussions, it's exempt. Youtube is also exempt since many of not most of the videos do not infringe.
The law applies only to sites which:
Quote:
|
site is primarily designed or operated for the purpose of, has only limited purpose or use other than, or is marketed for (theft)
|
It also provides protection from liability for a site which removes infringing material once they are notified. So to be affected, a sure has to have infringement as it's primary purpose for being, and has to ignore notices of infringing material.