Quote:
Originally Posted by Dickjagger1
I do get that, but here's the logic that you don't get. There is a big fucking difference between knowing what happens in the house you live in and owning a dozen apartment complexes with 500 units each. If something becomes a big enough problem, a tenant is running a crack house with stabbings and shootings every other day, you step in and evict the tenant to protect yourself and other tenants. But if you tell that owner that he can lose his business and go to jail every time a tenant smokes a joint after dinner, it becomes too risky and he gets out of the apartment business.
Whether you like it or not, copyright is viewed as a minor offense in every jurisdiction and is almost always civil matter, not criminal. CP is viewed as a major crime everywhere right up there with rape and murder, which is why it's treated differently. Love it or hate it, that's the way it is.
|
I can't agree with you at all. If someone smokes a joint, he is not dependent on the apartment to do that... he could smoke the joint anywhere and then - smoking a joint is not even a crime.
Using drugs doesn't mean possesing them. You can't be responsible for what people do in their private space if you are not AWARE of criminal activity involving your property (+ they would have to prove it.)
If someone stores or makes drugs, he needs the space for this. He needs someone to provide this space for him which is necessary for his activity. If someone provides him space and he knows that dude is using the space for crime, he is involved in it by providing MEANS. If a webhost has it proven that their client IS stealing (and it can be easily proven since that client doesn't have the licenses for that content),
then the company is AWARE that they are providing MEANS for thieves.
Procuring is a minor crime too, it can be a simple misdemeanor.
Yet if you rent your apartment and you KNOW that prostitution takes place in there - you become liable because you are providing means for prostitution. Of course, it's not just about having a suspicion, they would have to PROVE you were AWARE of what happens in there (clients telling you, the girls telling you etc.) , which, in case of private space is almost impossible. And this is exactly the difference - websites are publicly accessible, authors can easily prove that they are the authors, that the particular content is stolen and that the company is knowingly providing services to thieves.
In case of intentional crimes, locally, the only important thing is the proven KNOWLEDGE (= indirect intent).
BTW... that article is about
civil case, isn't it? So it's not really relevant to talk about criminal liability.. But even if something is not considered a crime that doesn't mean there is no liability for damages due to
NEGLIGENCE. The only reason why they are not liable is DMCA and the fact they follow it. There is no DMCA here.
And last but not least, copyright infringement has a maximum punishment of 8 years here (which is considered a felony) if there was a bigger damage. Pretty sure it is a crime in most European states.
