Hey Nathan, any chance Amazon risks losing their service provider status for this statement?
 

Assuming they have and want to keep that exemption / status in the first place.

http://aws.amazon.com/message/65348/

I'd say at a minimum they opened themselves up to libel / defamation lawsuits.

I'm kind of surprised Amazon posted this kind of a response when something much less inflammatory would have sufficed.

They are simply stating that after it has come to their attention, don't see how that effects their service provider status for the hordes of other content they host but aren't necessarily aware of the nature. Interesting that "copyright" is being used to take down wikileaks as well.

What is interesting? As any service provider does, they made a decision after becoming aware of what was happening. And it's not a question of which pieces of content they have rights to or don't. Its obvious (as they stated) that for almost all their content, they have zero rights to including 250,000 secret diplomatic cables.

I'm sure you're way smarter than their legal team. why not send them a link to this post and offer them your sig for $10 a month.

I read that statement and it did not sound inflammatory to me at all. As a matter of fact I think they went a little above and beyond by explaining exactly why they killed the site. I like wikileaks but I think Amazon was well within their rights to take the actions they took

Doesnt seem like there is anything wrong in what they said. It goes the same for all hosts. No one pre-screens. They all have TOS. This is just another day. Just happens the site has more publicity then others. I am sure it is not the only site that they have shutdown. Just the most well known. I dont know what this guy was thinking when he hosted something so controversial on a big hosting service like that. If he had some shady chinese hosting account the site would probably be up right now, unless for ddos.

The biggest diff between the 2 (besides whats 12 clicks pointed out, lol) Is That the CIA, Mossad, and MI6 dont have a vested interest in what Pornhub has on its front page.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

you're a real jackass ron, but that was pretty funny...:thumbsup





.

right in the TOS:

"you represent and warrant that you own or otherwise control all of the rights to the content… that use of the content you supply does not violate this policy and will not cause injury to any person or entity.”

pretty sure wikileaks doesn't have the rights to the content they published

"If they don't like the first amendment they shouldn't sell books"

very dissapointed in Amazon, and the chirpy "we are very excited" corporate newspeak doesn't help

:1orglaugh:thumbsup

Sounds like every pirate operation out there who gets away with not only publishing content they don't own, but profiting from it as well.

You are one caustic fucker, but that was funny as shit!

you do realize that the safe harbor provision doesn't give any protection for taking down content. It only allows the transfer the liablity to the copyright holder if a takedown is initiated.

if the government informed them of the "copyright" violation they can transfer the liability to government
if not they can't

btw just because amazon is willing to take the liablity for the takedown doesn't mean another company should too

remember the current story was that it was taken down due to DDOS attack and that would cost amazon millions in lost business since the whole point of s3 is that it can't be taken down by such an attack because of the SOS nature of the site.

Sounds about right, stolen content. :1orglaugh

Funny that they did use amazon, makes me wonder about these "hackers." That right there sort of spoils the whole thing for me. Where are the real people behind the curtain? Only an idiot would use services like amazon or godaddy for something like that. Srsly...

1st amendment doesn't protect stolen documents and nothing to do with this.

Whoever at Amazon that wrote that press release was obviously under a bit of stress. Fairly abrasive, but at least to the point.

with this statement: 'when companies or people go about securing and storing large quantities of data that isn’t rightfully theirs, and publishing this data without ensuring it won’t injure others, it’s a violation of our terms of service, and folks need to go operate elsewhere.'

i can understand their position and it most certainly looks like it could stand

every amusement park has a sign saying they can't be held responsible in the event of injury or death , but they often get sued because of injury or death.

The tos claims you must control ALL OF THE RIGHTS to the content, very few if any sites including amazon control "ALL THE RIGHTS" to the content they display. They aren't following their own tos.

Google and other sites display material they do not hold a copyright claim to, there is a process for this known as a dmca complaint. Unless wikileaks has been denying legit copyright claims then there is no basis for removing them based on the fact they "might" be violating a copyright claim, or that we are "pretty sure" they don't have a copyright claim.

Eh... I'm afraid the question of First Amendment protection for publication of pilfered documents is not even close to being that cut and dry.

Whether or not there are First Amendment problems with Amazon's decision, the larger questions of whether Assange's/Wikileaks' actions are illegal and whether Assange has committed a crime for which he can be prosecuted in the U.S. could definitely raise some substantive First Amendment issues.

For those interested in expert discussion of the legal issues surrounding Wikileaks, check out the ongoing conversation taking place on OpinioJuris.

Shockingly, the OJ bloggers (a collection of law professors from various respected law schools) are just a bit more authoritative on questions of law than is the GFY populace..... ;-)

BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHA!
:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh