Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Markham
This statement?
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?
|
that the fucking point moron you can
which means the abuse it and lose it penalty only applies to NON pirates sites misrepresented as pirates sites.
Quote:
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.
|
the current DMCA has an even greater liablity because it doesn't have the reasonable condition
66% of all takedown requests are bogus according to independent research
that thousands of bogus takedowns
all with a penalty which is way stronger then the one in this bill
if the current penalty doesn't stop abuse
why the fuck do you believe that an even weaker one going to do a better job
Quote:
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?
|
only if they want to lose the immunity
but here is the totally fucked up part as you just pointed out, if it unreasonable to accept the liablity the host,not the copyright holder who made the bogus complaint is on the hook.
there is no clear penalty for the copyright holder who abuses the law.
Quote:
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.
|
i have said what i want if you accuse an innocent site, you lose your copyright
that fixes the problem instantly because the legitimate copyright holders who fear that they will "accidentally" wipe an innocent site from the internet will make sure the procedures guarrentee that they can't make that mistake
look at the DMCA
if you added two conditions to the take down
1. undentify the copyright material that you own that is being infringed
2. document the start and end time of the infringing use
universal would not have had a valid takedown to the mega upload song
and if the penalty for knowingly filing an incomplete or bogus takedown notice was the right of the host or the accused to file a request to void the copyright (assuming the copyright holder refuses to settle)
then you can bet universal would not have done the shit they did
putting the penalty in place
make the legit copyright holder figuire out what process needs to be because they will do just enough to make sure that they don't lose their copyright and nothing more.