Quote:
Originally Posted by nextri
That is a good question, and an important question. Should Skype or ICQ get penalized because I send a copyrighted MP3 to a friend?
In my opinion, they shouldn't.
You might say ICQ and Skype aren't the same, but in principle under this new law, they are.
|
Are Skype and ICQ "Dedicated to piracy of US property"? If the answer is yes, then they are liable. If the answer is no, they are not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nextri
Paul, is that really a good thing though? That youtube could seize operations because of this? Copyright infringement isn't really a problem on youtube, because they have solved the problem with technology. You don't find whole episodes of copyrighted content on youtube. They are able to detect copyrighted content, and nudity automatically with technology, and advanced filters. So why create new laws to solve problems they are already solving with technology?
Their main problem is offshore sites that don't want to follow laws and regulations. But this law isn't only targeting offshore sites. It has serious free speech limitations for everyone.
|
Here's a good point. all those pro piracy guys screaming about Youtube and other companies being hit are just trying to scare people. It only applies to companies currently breaking laws on the statute book.
Quote:
(1) DEDICATED TO THEFT OF U.S. PROPERTY- An `Internet site is dedicated to theft of U.S. property' if--
(A) it is an Internet site, or a portion thereof, that is a U.S.-directed site and is used by users within the United States; and
(B) either--
(i) the U.S.-directed site is primarily designed or operated for the purpose of, has only limited purpose or use other than, or is marketed by its operator or another acting in concert with that operator for use in, offering goods or services in a manner that engages in, enables, or facilitates--
(I) a violation of section 501 of title 17, United States Code;
(II) a violation of section 1201 of title 17, United States Code; or
(III) the sale, distribution, or promotion of goods, services, or materials bearing a counterfeit mark, as that term is defined in section 34(d) of the Lanham Act or section 2320 of title 18, United States Code; or
(ii) the operator of the U.S.-directed site--
(I) is taking, or has taken, deliberate actions to avoid confirming a high probability of the use of the U.S.-directed site to carry out acts that constitute a violation of section 501 or 1201 of title 17, United States Code; or
(II) operates the U.S.-directed site with the object of promoting, or has promoted, its use to carry out acts that constitute a violation of section 501 or 1201 of title 17, United States Code, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement.
|
I'm not a lawyer and don't play one. But doesn't is seem logical that
IF a law has not been amended to exempt the Internet, then any company breaking that law should be liable to the penalties?
Imagine if this became normal with new technology. Mobile phone companies not subject to the law. CP, snuff, etc are all legal on a new technology.
The problem has always been penalising these companies. This law seems to put that right. It's easy for any site "Dedicated to piracy" to defend itself against the penalties. Just change or exclude US traffic. So find a billing company outside the US, advertisers outside the US and block US traffic. Some wil get through, but in the eyes of the law your not a "U.S.-directed site". And before anyone argues about getting around it or US people able to watch it by getting around it. Go read it slowly, it uses the word "AND" not "OR".