Hosting Provider is Not Liable for ‘Pirate’ Site, US Appeals Court Rules
 

https://torrentfreak.com/hosting-pro...-rules-200721/

:(

Of course not. Why would they want to put a stop to theft. There is way to much money in it.

Think about it. If the Domain Registrars would pull the domains it would all be over.

If the hosts would boot them, it would be all over and No more need for....


Wait for it....


Attorneys to fight this. And thats the reason folks.

Innarresting . . .

:thumbsup:thumbsup:thumbsup:thumbsup

This is a sad day for all content makers and a great victory for all thieves,,,,:mad:

That would require hosting companies to hire huge teams of people to sift through content on their clients' servers 24/7 and at the same time be experts in copyright law and who owns what copyright.

Sounds pretty fucking stupid. :thumbsup

https://www.article13.org/faq

If only the rest of the civilised world adopted it too :(

This. Once you make hosting companies, ISPs, domain registrars, social media platforms, etc. responsible for what people do downstream of them, that's effectively the end of the Internet because there's no way they can possibly police every customer. If you have any doubt about how retarded that could get in a hurry, just remember that right now a sitting congressman is trying to sue twitter over a fucking imaginary cow.

The funny thing is, this is what the dmca was created for...to protect hosting providers.

Not really. DMCA was all about Napster and DeCSS, and the safe harbor provisions were a compromise that was put in to get it through Congress. Nobody in Congress at the time had a fucking clue what a hosting provider was or how anything actually worked, and pretty much EFF and industry people pressured enough people to get 512 included.

It makes good sense. Why would they be liable? That would make ISPs, phone makers, power plants and everyone else liable too.

The argument that hosts are liable for the actions of their customers is about as dumb as the argument that gun makers are liable for armed robberies.

Why?

If you rented storage space for drug dealers to store their drugs, would you be responsible? Yes, you would.

If you rented an apartment for prostitution, would you be responsible? Yes, you would. (at least here)

The only important thing for criminal responsibility is if you knew about it.

So why not hosting companies??? It's their equipment and as long as they know the user is doing something illegal, why not???

Why do they delete any content involving CP if (according to you) they are not be responsible for what others put on their servers?? It's the same logic. I am sure in those cases they act lightning fast.

If they know that the content is illegal cause they had it proven and yet they ignore it, they would most likely be criminally responsible in most European countries.

They are only protected by DMCA which, by the way, we don't have locally.

:2 cents:

Dude, once you know about an illegal activity in your house and you tolerate it, you become responsible. I am surprised people don't get this simple logic. The only reason why hosting companies in USA are not responsible is DMCA. We don't have that here, so local companies could be fucked if they still knowingly offered space for proven thieves.


Hell, locally you are even responsible if you lend your car to a friend and he gets caught speeding but not stopped by the police. They mail you (the car owner) the ticket and it's your job to prove you were not the one who was driving the car.

:thumbsup:thumbsup

Hosting CP in any way is a huge violation of federal law and state law. The simple possession of it is very, very fucking illegal in the US in every jurisdiction. As soon as a host with any ties to the US is made aware of it, they will remove it almost instantly. Otherwise say hello to the FBI, who has a very very long dick. The possession of Jules Jordan's latest full scene isn't illegal by the very nature of it, so your shitty little analogy falls apart pretty quickly.

I sometimes wonder how most of you tie your shoes in the morning. :thumbsup

DMCA protects them. I am quite sure they couldn't get away with that in Europe.

No shit, really??? That's what I am talking about Sherlock. :321GFY Jesus...

Copyright infringement is a crime too ...just like CP is or any obscene content. But according to some people here, hosting companies can't be responsible for knowingly offering services to pirates. Wrong.. here they sure can be held responsible.

Article 13 (see the link I posted) will most likely make them check the content and if not them, the site owners. And I don't fucking care how are they going to do that :winkwink:

I guess you didn't even read what Article 13 does, because what you said is not at all true. :thumbsup

It's you who doesn't read.. or maybe just doesn't understand :2 cents:

I will make it easier for you, it is written right in there:

and...

So what exactly you don't understand?

And something about webhosts...

https://www.freezenet.ca/web-hosting...-requirements/

:1orglaugh :321GFY

Like I said, I don't care if it's the webhosts or site owners who will be obliged to take measures for preventing pirated content, and I don't care how, it's good news for content creators.

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.

:2 cents:

Actually France tried to pass a very harsh law against "hate speech". The fact than the US is more tolerant could attract the businesses there. And i speak about the legal business (not related to piracy).
I am for freedom of speech .
It is good to know that it may exist somewhere on the internet.

Not sure about France but there are laws against hate speech already in place. Article 13 actually protects free speech, because it protects content creators and places the responsibility on site owners instead of users. I fully support it.

Spicy clearly isn't a business owner and clearly has no idea how the real world works. :thumbsup

This thread just shows who is a content producer and who is not. Some people just tolerate piracy, because they profit from it - either directly or indirectly. No DMCA will protect this assholes in Europe though.

Comparing CP with Copyright infringement is wrong man. If you can't see that you should seriously reflect on your values.

Even if I did own a storage facility with 1000 units (or five) I am not liable for what is stored there, nor am I responsible for actively inspecting every single thing put in there. But if the cops show up with a COURT ORDER I would let them in and kick the tenant out if they violated my terms.

Then again. I am not a host nor do I own a storage facility, so wtf do I care :)

But expecting hosts to check every single file stored makes no sense.. and what should they check for? If the site owner has the rights? How the fuck are they supposed to know who has the rights to what? Lol

The logic I see here is unbelievable. Why stop with hosts? Why not make the ISP inspect every single packet routed through their network to make sure your rights aren't infringed? Or to be extra sure, make the companies that sell hardware used in displays liable. After all, if their hardware wasn't displaying pirates content, there wouldn't be a problem.

Oh yes they do, many Dutch but also Moldova, Albania, Russia and other shithole countries :2 cents:

For example check these two:

file.al
embedy.cc

You mean the same Europe where all of the "bulletproof" hosting companies are located?

I appreciate you spending so much effort to make sure we know you're clueless about the industry you supposedly work in. :thumbsup

Pro tip: most content producers aren't stuck in 1995. That's why they're relevant and you're not. :winkwink:

https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loi_contre_les_contenus_haineux_sur_internet

For article 13: I don't.
Everyone will go to a more reasonable country and that's about it...
Good luck to fight that.

The problem is if no responsibility is absolute. It just takes an off the record cooperation between a hoster and a webmaster to get a "no one is responsible" situation. Hoster forwards complaints to the admin who just ignores them and is otherwise unreachable using proxy and privacy services. It doesn't even take so much to make an llc, rent server space and be your own "hoster", who effectively forwards complaints to himself.