Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery
seriously what about the following statement do you not understand.
|
This statement?
Quote:
|
Think about how the fuck would a pirate site ever prove they were innocent by definition they can't because their a pirate site.
|
This doesn't make sense. Because a pirate site, is a pirate site and therefore guilty of being a pirate site. So how do they prove themselves innocent, when they are guilty?
Still I see what you're saying. If I accuse someone of being a pirate site, when they are not, and send official letters to the ISPs and they act on that information. Then the penalty lies with the accuser. Big companies with lots to lose could face huge legal costs.
I think the loop hole for the accused to get settlement lies in this wording.
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.
So if I accuse a US site, that's not a site dedicated to piracy. The ISP can ignore my letter?
Plus in the TOS it has to say that the site will not be dedicated to piracy. Now what is "dedicated"? A site with some pirated content, 90% pirated content or a site with 100% pirated content?
Yes all this needs to be cleaned up and until it passes you don't know what will happen. So if the wording is changed to something like "after the ISP reviews the site and in their opinion it's dedicated to the theft of U.S. property." That will satisfy you. Or do you want it to go to a court?
With the offending company bearing the costs? So the pirates need to come to court to defend themselves and the accuser or pirate faces a big bill if wrong.
Plus wording like "majority of the site is pirated content."? Or major part of the site is pirated content."?
You see just saying how does a pirate prove he's not a pirate. Is not very clever.