it a lot worse than that
if give you immunity for anything you want to do to the site
you want to hire a hacker to take the site down, want to DoS it to death you get to do that scott free too.

I don't think you'll really be able to get around the rules like that Paul.

We'll see.

No, because I am not involved in piracy Paul.

As I keep telling you.

Would new laws that stop dirty old men hanging round playgrounds with puppies bother you?

That is clearly wrong. I do not support that and the consequences are dire if it happens.

However are you referring to this?

SEC. 104. IMMUNITY FOR TAKING VOLUNTARY ACTION AGAINST SITES DEDICATED TO THEFT OF U.S. PROPERTY.

No cause of action shall lie in any Federal or State court or administrative agency against, no person may rely in any claim or cause of action against, and no liability for damages to any person shall be granted against, a service provider, payment network provider, Internet advertising service, advertiser, Internet search engine, domain name registry, or domain name registrar for taking any action described in section 102(c)(2), section 103(d)(2), or section 103(b) with respect to an Internet site, or otherwise voluntarily blocking access to or ending financial affiliation with an Internet site, in the reasonable belief that--

(1) the Internet site is a foreign infringing site or is an Internet site dedicated to theft of U.S. property; and

(2) the action is consistent with the entity?s terms of service or other contractual rights.


I'll take your word on this as you've been getting away with it for years.

Can you prove this? If not why are you so worried about all measures to curb piracy?

Is it wasting your time and money, will it cost you money?

A law against spamming people or a charge for every email sent, now that I would understand your opposition to. An increase in the laws against piracy, strengthening of existing laws, you have always been consistently against this. Can you see how you might be giving everyone the impression you support piracy? Not good self marketing, you should as a "marketing man, know how to twist the truth or lie. :1orglaugh

No, why should it?

The puppy in question now scares the life out of most people, including grown ups. Only a complete imbecile would think an eight month old Boxer would be a cute lovable puppy. If the cap fits, keep it on Damian.

Glad you've finally realised why people think the bill is bad. We've made progress.


Paul, you accused me of a crime. It is behoves you to produce your evidence. How could I *prove* I am not a pirate?

I'm not worried. I just don't agree with the current proposals. Now you understand why it is bad, why do you agree with it?

This is going round in circles Paul, I said yesterday, some people have the ability to care about things other than those which directly effect them.

I can think about things that don't directly impact my life. Like, say, apartheid. I went on anti apartheid marches. That doesn't make me black. It just means I have the mental capacity to think about other people. Sorry this confuses you so much.

There is a law against spamming people and I am very much in favour of it. Spamming is illegal and bad.

I would understand your opposition to a law that stopped dirty old men hanging round playgrounds with puppies.

I can't lie anywhere near as well as you do. you've lied about my business, my clients, my finances, my domicile, my girlfriend, my sexuality and more. That's quite some going. And all I do is post quotes about what you said. Must gall you something rotten to be forced to lie and just see me posting actual quotes.

Does it worry you that your friends think it would be a bad idea for you to be in charge of a class of 15 year olds? What do they know about you that we don't?

But really, if they did introduce a law to stop you hanging around parks with a dog, what would you do?

And at 8 months this boxer looks pretty cute to me. I bet the girls love him!



How adorable!

Go read it again. IMO it says that the service provider is immune. The accuser has to make the accusation to a court. Which is similar to todays DMCA. We need a lawyer to comment on this. GFY isn't a layers forum.

IMO. "What I think" is not "what I accuse" go take an English lesson. Or I might think you stupid.
Well we read them differently. The repercussions of what you are saying are immense.

Most conversations with you tend to go like that.

Now off on tangents, got bored with circles?
No fully support it.

You said you had a wife, is it a girlfriend, a wife or both?

What gave you that idea? One of our neighbors is an English teacher and she thinks it a good idea. You dream up these things, go quote the post. Or are you lying again?

Don't have parks around here, we live in the countryside. The open spaces are all around.
Rajah is like that when I hold a biscuit by the camera. When he meets new people he goes crazy, which is what that dog does. Took Rajah for a walk today and we went into the village. A man came up to pat him and for no reason he started to bark with excitement. Not threatening and his tail was wagging, he's 26 kilos of power.

I'm going to shoot a video. BRB

The party making the allegations of copyright violation are not given immunity from damages. Only those who act on those allegations in good faith are given immunity.

Therefore, if you make false accusations against a website that has all legal content, you may be sued for damages by those adversely affected.

Sounds reasonable to me.:thumbsup

Just my opinion.:pimp

Stop lying. Post a quote where I've said that.


You said so. Then you said you were joking. Which post do you want me to find? The one where you said it, or the one where you said you were joking when you said it?


Please don't deliberately antagonise your pet in order to make him look frightening. I am trolling you, I don't want the dog in any sort of suffering for you to try and prove that puppies aren't cute. Really.

It would be interesting if a real lawyer would comment but as I read it, if a Internet provider blocked a site NOT "in the reasonable belief" they would lay themselves open to legal action against them.


Banning the DNS may not be as good as taking down the IP, but I am sure that would slow down and signal something is not right. A lot easier to remember www.stolen stuff.com than 234.56.78.88


Damian is not a pirate, and has said he against piracy, Paul Markham, by making stupid accusations, again destroys another thread that could be interesting.

Oh that makes it OK?

So you have a perfectly legal site, it turns over x,xxx a day. you get closed down because the MPAA say so. You have all financial services removed. You then have no revenue. You make an appeal, this takes x months, during which you have no revenue. THEN you might be able to sue them and try and get the money back?

You think that sounds OK?

it is the duty of the person charging another with a crime to produce evidence.

False accusations ruin lives everyday.

You could be accused of rape.

The Police could take down your site in the false belief of CP

They put people in prison for publishing on facebook.


But why would they?
They would be foolish to take down innocent sites as they would risk losing that power.

The risk to the creative industries is real. So either the Internet companies have to police content and allow the companies to recoup their costs, or the Internet companies can pay the creative industries for all their material being downloaded and charge Internet users the cost.

Well that's what I read it as. Seems a few pirates are scare mongering with their lies.

can you explain to Damian the difference between forming an opinion and charging. He's clueless on this as well.

I've given up reading his lies.

I have a video of a cute puppy to edit. :thumbsup

Can you explain how this will work and the financial consequences of such a malicious attack on a legal website?

I think you'll find the MPAA have to go to the courts with evidence. Go read the act.

I see lots of words like Court Order, Attorney General and filed with the court.

The way you talk it just needs someone to phone u a few people and tell them to take the site down.

When in fact they will have to perjure themselves in court. Grave consequences. I'm not a lawyer and neither are you of GG. I think the people who draw up this law have a better grasp than you make out.

With that in mind why are you against the law?

By lies do you mean when you call me a liar, I remind you that you said you were joking when your friends said it would be a bad idea for you to be in charge of a group of 15 year olds and call you out and you ignore me?

Cool.

How long will your lie about ignore last this time?

Gawd bless you old man, I have such fun playing with you. Can't believe I got you to shoot a video. fucking lollington lol.

So you don't want to reply to the the fact you lied about the way a site can be taken down. Avoiding that one. By side tracking the debate.

I shot the clip and will do more tomorrow. It was done it for a lot more than you. Still it will show how little you know about dogs.

So back to the thread. You've been proven wrong or lying about what's required to take a site down and the penalties for false testimony. Are you still against the law and if so why?

Sorry, did you want me to post the original thread where you said your friends told you it would be a bad idea for you to be in charge of a class of 15 year olds, or the one where you said you were joking?

So am I right in thinking this law will also put processing and advertising companies in the frame once notified of an infringing site?

If so the DNS slant is largely irrelevant. It removes the biggest prop to piracy sites. Profit.

What processing company or advertiser will risk facing huge fines for doing business with pirates?

This is going to hit a lot of people if I'm right. "User Uploads" are gone. So Tubes will have to buy content or put full scenes from their own sites on their Tubes to maintain their traffic. Will they buy and can they afford to keep buying. Or is it good business for instance, for Manwin to include a lot of updates from Brazzers and Mofos to keep their traffic coming to them. The advertisers can't risk pirated scenes on the site.

Interesting times ahead.

It's hilarious it's taken you 10 pages to actually read it.

Well it took you longer. Or you were lying.

Let me think of the obvious answer. Lying or had not read it???????

So now I've pointed out your fears are misplaced, what's your opposition to the law?

read it again it doesn't say service provider of the infringing site it simply says service provider

remove your content would also be a service provider (of the copyright holder)

copyright holder tasks a service provider to do all the work

that service provider "accidentally" takes down a legit site

the service provider immunity kicks in because the law grants it to all service providers not just the service providers of he rogue site

btw you again dodged the question

if you truely beleived it impossible to abuse why are you so against putting a clause that says you lose your copyright if you ever abuse it.

if your arguement that it infringement is dead wrong, you now have to live under the rules you think are fair for everyone else to live under.

really 1/3 of all DMCA are bogus

warner brother just admitted in court then when given access to strike their own content from hotfiles
they deliberately removed content they didn't own the copyright too.
has the DMCA been struck down hell no your actually arguing for an even stronger law

the penalties for making false claims should be just as serious as the penalties for infringement.

that the only way you could make such a statement.

based on the current track record you can expect 1 company in 3 to be wrongfully blacklisted from the internet.

the current DMCA requires a declaration of validity under penalty of perjury too

yet 1/3 are bogus

it obvious to anyone that the so called protections against abuse is no where close to enough given that fact

btw you dodged the question

if you truly believed that this law is not going to be abused what your problem with raising the penalty for making a bogus claim to complete loss of copyright.

Agreed, far too many are sent out by automatic programs and this needs to stopped. By removing obvious piracy site a lot of the work against pirates will disappear. Allowing more time for more accurate DMCA's. We all know Hotfile is a site running off of piracy and profiting from piracy. We can easily identify the pirated content. Once that's done and their funding is removed. They are no more. So what's left to deal with?

Yes people making bogus claims need to be hit hard. Even to the extreme of them losing copyright if they don't pay the fine. Same could apply to piracy sites. Which is te problem today, no one takes any real notice of the penalties of piracy.

The clause in the DMCA that allows publishers to get away with not checking, needs removing. It was meant for hosting services, not publishers who do hosting.

actually hotfiles would argue that they simply provide network aware backup services. Like the System management services in corporations, they backup data that has no confidentially requirement (OS and Application state for sms)

the service and revenue doesn't care if the content is pirated, open source, or fully authorized the ad on the side, the upgrade to premium speeds works just as well.


if a judge finally agrees with them then all the people sending notices now should lose their copyright completely

that the point copyright holders agreeing that hotfiles is running off piracy is not enough

the supreme court is the one that matters.


i hate to say it your the closest to getting it here, you still make statements like we all agree hotfiles is running off piracy