This is the key phrase that I stopped reading at.
Quote:
|
Presumably, though, because service providers — even the mighty Google — aren’t really in the position to examine every claim, and even if they spot potential defenses (e.g., fair use), there isn’t much incentive to ignore requests.
|
High lighted to make the point.
If the mighty Google are not in a position to examine every claim. The solution is simple. Stop using "user uploads" and yes nextri Youtube is the publisher. If you send media to a person who distributes it, both of you are publishing.
This is very simple, if this law passes as is and Youtube or any other site can't afford to employ the people to make sure they stay withing the law, then the site comes down. No difference from any other business.
I would of thought that for a DMCA to be legal it has to be delivered by hand and signed for. Not come from some anonymous free email address. Who's to say the email was received?
Quote:
|
So the question is: Do we want them to have to censor and decide what we as the users can talk about? Do we really want an internet where companies like these have to police their users and make sure they don't talk about something illegal or share anything copyrighted amongst themselves on services like these?
|
So does the same apply in other areas? Do adult video or print magazine publishers have to check if a photoset contains an underage girl? Where does the non policing stop and start?
The problem is sharing is breaking the law, so should a site be exempt for the penalties of helping others break the law? Should this apply to a social network site of people sharing videos, like on pornhub?
Now think of how the law is written to cover this.
DMCA had a stupid loophole that pirate after pirates drove trucks through. So you think SOPA should have the same loop holes? And then we can all start again with a new law that's an even bigger sledge hammer.
I just realised what that article drove a truck through, Fabian's excuses for not taking down infringing content.