It Is Both Ridiculous And Dangerous To Make Domain Registrars Liable For Content On Domains

from the terrible-terrible-ruling dept

Going back more than five years, we’ve been warning about the dangers of moving copyright enforcement down the stack, away from the actual hosting companies deeper and deeper into infrastructure. This was, of course, part of the goal of SOPA — to make infrastructure companies liable for infringement, and to force them to shut down entire sites. But that’s exactly a key part of our concern. Infrastructure players have only a single remedy: shut down an entire site, including anything that’s not infringing, to deal with claims (never adjudications) of infringing content. And yet, legacy copyright companies have been going after domain registrars for years.

We were particularly troubled by a ruling in Germany back in 2014 saying that a registrar could be liable for infringement on a site using a domain from that registrar. And while it’s taken years, it appears that that ruling has now been upheld by a higher court.

The quick details: Universal Music went after a domain registrar, Key-Systems, in Germany because it had registered the domain name for a torrent site H33t.com. The court forced the registrar to kill the domain, and on appeal that ruling has been upheld, with a specific ruling that a domain registrar can be liable for infringement on a site:

The Higher Regional Court of Saarbr?cken concluded Key-Systems can be held secondarily liable for the infringing actions of a customer if it fails to take action if rightsholders point out ?obvious? copyright infringing activity online.

This means that, if a site owner is unresponsive to takedown requests, Key-Systems and other registrars can be required to take a domain name offline, even when the infringing activity is limited to a single page.

Some may argue that the impact of this is limited, as the ruling notes two things: first, that liability only applies to a registrar that does nothing in response to notices of infringement, and second, that it applies to “obvious” copyright infringing activity. And that may limit some of the damage of such a ruling, but it opens up a ton of other questions. Are domain registrars now expected to police the content on domains they register? Because that’s often way outside of their areas of expertise, and like most such companies when put in that position, they will default to shutting down (or threatening to shut down) websites, rather than actually taking the time to understand the details and nuances (is it fair use? is most activity on the site non-infringing? etc).

Second, while many people seem to think that copyright infringement is always “obvious,” it is rarely the case. Yes, there are some cases where it could be described as “obvious,” but copyright is very specific and often very much dependent on context. And given how frequently we see people claim copyright infringement where none actually exists, you have to worry about what happens when copyright holders start claiming “obvious” infringement over things that are anything but obvious.

There are two key points here. Somehow, we went from a world in which copyright infringement was something that could only be determined by a court reviewing all of the facts (also known as due process) to one in which all that matters are mere accusations. And, second, by passing off the policing function to infrastructure players rather than the actual (potential) infringers and their hosts, all they have is the nuclear option of completely removing sites from the internet. That’s a dangerous combination and one that will undoubtedly lead to significant levels of censorship.

It’s pretty incredible that two industries — the film and recording industries — who used to pride themselves on their support of free speech, are now two of the leading industries pushing for vast censorship regimes of one of the best engines of free speech ever created.

Filed Under: , , , , ,
Companies: h33t, key-systems, universal music

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “It Is Both Ridiculous And Dangerous To Make Domain Registrars Liable For Content On Domains”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
117 Comments
Mason Wheeler (profile) says:

Somehow, we went from a world in which copyright infringement was something that could only be determined by a court reviewing all of the facts (also known as due process) to one in which all that matters are mere accusations.

"Somehow"?

We know exactly how it happened: the DMCA got passed, with its guilty-on-accusation-alone takedown system, and then it stuck around long enough to become a precedent.

The silver lining to this is that this also means we know how to fix it: repeal the DMCA and do away with extralegal takedowns and contributory liability. Place copyright liability under the aegis of CDA 230 alongside everything else; it was a stupid exception to carve out in the first place. Return to a system where infringement can only be determined by a court reviewing all of the facts (also known as due process).

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Without the DMCA, infringers would just be sued into oblivion. Internet providers would not have protection and would not be able to exist (unless we surrendered Hollywood and the music industry to them).

Unchecked piracy shifts control over the entertainment and publishing industries from creators to pirates and big internet coporations.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Manifestly incorrect. In the absence of the DMCA, CDA 230 would protect providers and platforms from the actions of people using them. DMCA just opens the door to force the platforms to act on the behalf of the legacy publisher bullies.

DMCA can go away. So can copyright, as it is currently. Those things would be excellent steps towards a reduced-piracy future – but given your closing line, you’re unlikely to agree or even argue this in good faith. Be nice to be proved wrong, but my expectations are looooooooooow.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

What is even more seriously flawed is the idea that an industry can demand a site removed from the Internet by accusing them of having infringing material on the site, and getting an unrelated party to do that for then. What is more, they cannot be trusted with this power, and the will use automated tools, and and let those order the removal without the any human checking for actual infringement.

Anonymous Coward says:

‘It’s pretty incredible that two industries — the film and recording industries — who used to pride themselves on their support of free speech, are now two of the leading industries pushing for vast censorship regimes’

have said this same thing here many times and always been shouted down. everything just about that happens in courts almost in every country is centered around giving everyone else less control of everything but more control of everything to the entertainment industries. they want full control of the Internet and not only will they not stop trying to get it, they are going to get it and that will be within the next 12 months! we wont have any say in the matter because governments, security services and courts everywhere are doing whatever they can to help them get this control! when a country is now introducing a bill to make an ISP liable for copyright infringing material uploaded by customers, how long do you think it’s gonna be before the USA, UK N Z Aus Canada and everywhere else will be forced by the industries to do the same? and all because a few 80+ year old pricks cant bear to lose control of or money from their media but wont adapt to the change in times!!

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

The film and recording industries prided themselves on having the loudest voices, not on free speech. They just claimed it was free speech when they weren’t the only voice in the room.

This is the end game of looking for the best ways to shout others down and force people into the industry approved methods.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

“These industries created millions of jobs and bring in trillions in export dollars to the US.”

As does the tech industry, but that doesn’t stop them from deliberately trying to undermine it. Why should industries that by definition do nothing specifically useful be exempt?

“Congress likes that money and so do most citizens.”

Yes, and it would be nice if those citizens actually got that money. Unfortunately, the industry loves to stop anyone else getting that money, hence the term “Hollywood accounting”.

If you’re going to try defending the entertainment industry with tales of taxes and employees being paid properly, you really need to do some reading on the subject.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Be fair. It’s not just the entertainment industry that’s pushing this. It’s anyone who’s unscrupulous enough to want to take advantage of false accusations against speech. Much of the actual abuse has been not against people who REPEATED their speech (infringers or fair users) but people who SAID THINGS ABOUT THEM. So sleazy companies–or sleazy politicians–want to prevent their reputation following them. Hence the close relationship between “right to be forgotten” laws and copyright fascism. In the U.S., the copyright fascists are riding high, while “right to be forgotten” proposals are explicitly forbidden by the Bill of (real) Rights. So the “want to be forgotten” creeps dress up in “income of the artiste” costumes and go all Don Quixote at the windmills.

flyinginn (profile) says:

Re: Re:

True that. But the notion that there is some haemorrhage of funds is laughable. I’m old enough to remember the Payola scandals when the same content providers bribed DJs to give their hits more free air time. Now, I’ve just had to permanently remove a public domain transport safety website because of copyright trolling. I despair. Legislators appear totally illiterate, regulators suborned, and courts dedicated to excessive enforcement of bad law. I hope someone wakes up before the entire WWW becomes the shopping channel.

L Seedy-Screen says:

Gee, kids: everything is going the way I've predicted.

It’s pretty incredible that two industries — the film and recording industries — who used to pride themselves on their support of free speech, are now two of the leading industries pushing for vast censorship regimes of one of the best engines of free speech ever created.

First, "incredible" is an absolute, and the notion of an impossible can’t be qualified with the adjective "pretty"; industries are not "who’s", that’s a collective noun, nor can such noun "pride themselves" any more than can a rock, nor is (apparently) teh internets an "engine": it’s medium at most. But except for that your sentence is cromulent enough that one can puzzle out that you as usual reach for
a wrong equation of "free speech" and "it’s okay to steal copyrighted content".

L Seedy-Screen says:

Re: Gee, kids: everything is going the way I've predicted.

they will default to shutting down (or threatening to shut down) websites, rather than actually taking the time to understand the details and nuances (is it fair use? is most activity on the site non-infringing? etc).

SO? That is only likely to happen after accused. You’re trying to make a literally paranoid case that copyright holders will be taking down EVERY site for NO cause.

It’s "logical" only to you who have equated "free speech" with "FREE copyrighted content".

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Any site that cannot afford the legal bill associated with fighting copyright holders in court over an accusation of infringement—regardless of whether the accusation is true—would most likely cave to the demand of a shutdown. Better to cut the losses and run than to fight and end up in the poorhouse regardless of the outcome.

L Seedy-Screen says:

Re: Re: Re: Gee, kids: everything is going the way I've predicted.

Any site that cannot afford the legal bill associated with fighting copyright holders in court over an accusation of infringement—regardless of whether the accusation is true—would most likely cave to the demand of a shutdown.

SO? — I already stated that you pirates are paranoid and believe that copyright holders will be shutting down sites REGARDLESS whether any copyrighted content on them. — That won’t happen, kid. It’s another of your "now imagine if" excuses.

Now take a site doesn’t host such content (and get income from selling access) because it’s been declared illegal and enforcement mechanisms have been put in place to shut them down. Who loses in such case besides pirates who are already engaged in illegal activity and why should non-pirates care?

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

I already stated that you [copyright infringers] are paranoid and believe that copyright holders will be shutting down sites REGARDLESS whether any copyrighted [works] on them.

Given the fact that powerful copyright holders have resources that a regular jackoff does not, copyright holders could shut down a fair number of sites with the threat of a lawsuit. It is not paranoia when we have seen major corporations file false DMCA claims and government institutions seize domains/websites at the behest of those corporations.

That won’t happen, kid.

You cannot make such a guarantee.

Now take a site doesn’t host such content (and get income from selling access) because it’s been declared illegal and enforcement mechanisms have been put in place to shut them down. Who loses in such case besides pirates who are already engaged in illegal activity and why should non-pirates care?

For me to answer this question with any accuracy, you will need to specify what you mean by “such content”.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Bring it on old man

So far you’re 100% bullshit so I’ll take my chances you’re still a fat, impotent, rambling, idiot, full of nothing, but lies, and empty threats. Protip champ: You gotta be able to back up your your words with actual actions at least one time for anyone to take you even a little bit seriously.

And we all know you can’t.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

I already stated that you pirates are paranoid and believe that copyright holders will be shutting down sites REGARDLESS whether any copyrighted content on them

You know, this might have been a valid point if ICE wasn’t found to be shutting down thousands of sites, keeping them on ice (pun intended) for several years, then releasing them again at no penalty or punishment whatsoever.

I’d like to shut down whatever business you’re running and prevent you from working for several years, then restore your processes, not get punished, and watch you flounder with no income from what you do. You’d like that wouldn’t you blue boy?

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Gee, kids: everything is going the way I've predicte

“SO? — I already stated that you pirates are paranoid and believe that copyright holders will be shutting down sites REGARDLESS whether any copyrighted content on them”

Presumably because we – not infringers by the way, regardless of your lies – are aware of things called facts and history, where the liars you worship have done exactly that thing.

Once again, your position is only supportable if you utterly misrepresent reality.

techflaws (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Gee, kids: everything is going the way I've predicte

“I already stated that you pirates are paranoid and believe that copyright holders will be shutting down sites REGARDLESS whether any copyrighted content on them. — That won’t happen, kid. It’s another of your “now imagine if” excuses.”

Hey jackass, what about ICE holding sites hostage for years on the behest of copyright holders?

L Seedy-Screen says:

Re: Re: Gee, kids: everything is going the way I've predicted.

Somehow, we went from a world in which copyright infringement was something that could only be determined by a court reviewing all of the facts (also known as due process) to one in which all that matters are mere accusations.

Umm, no. Went from copying and distribution of valuable works being difficult (besides socially unacceptable) to current milieu in which file hosts and torrents and streaming sites are common, and in which the creators aren’t getting all due rewards, IF ANY. Ease of copying doesn’t change the morality. Nor does anything which you pirates will assert change either morality or clear law. You want FREE content to fill your empty heads and you’ve become criminals to get it, as have those which run commercial-scale sites to illegally profit from what others have made — which is WHY the court has so decided.

This is not a “free speech” problem, it’s a THEFT problem. Not difficult to understand once remove your deliberate attempt to re-cast it as entirely different: pirates esp at commercial scale do not have rights; creators do.

Already dealt your other “key point”.

Flyinginn says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Gee, kids: everything is going the way I've predicte

Right to Due process? Well, technically. You have the right to spend several thousand $$ arguing that the alleged infringement doesn’t exist, if you have several thousand $$ hanging around and don’t feel like buying peace for a few hundred $$. The availability of due process is not a big help when there is no handy tool to determine whether an image in a 3rd party document linked to your site is infringing or properly licensed. You can find yourself arguably infringing while totally ignorant about the supposed infringement, with no motive to infringe, and unable to determine whether an infringement has even happened because the report which contains the stock image was provided and linked more than 20 years ago.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Gee, kids: everything is going the way I've predicte

I’ll let others handle the rest of your prattle, but I did want to say something about this:

[authors] aren’t getting all due rewards, IF ANY.

No one is owed or entitled to a “reward” for publishing their work. If you believe otherwise, congratulations—you’re likely a wealthy corporate executive.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Gee, kids: everything is going the way I've pred

Expecting legal protection that is guaranteed by law used to not be an “entitlement.”

Pirates need to be locked up since they are costing big internet companies a fortune, causing tremendous harm. The alternative is to dismantle copyright protection and we can’t have that.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

Expecting legal [restrictions] that [are] guaranteed by law used to not be an "entitlement."

Expecting to reap a “reward” (i.e., make a profit) just because you published a work, however, is entitlement.

[Infringers] need to be locked up since they are costing big internet companies a fortune, causing tremendous harm.

Two things.

  1. Prove this “tremendous” harm exists. (And please provide the necessary citations required for verifying your evidence.)
  2. If you truly believe copyright infringers of any scale and type require jail sentences, how certain are you that you have never once, in your entire life, committed that crime and thus deserve jail time of your own?

The alternative is to dismantle copyright protection and we can’t have that.

Ah, yes, the “one extreme or the other” dichotomy. Never mind that someone could conceivably come up with a better-balanced copyright law that takes both copyright holders and the public into account—nope, the only solutions are “lock up the infringers” or “destroy copyright” and literally nothing else~.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 The dishonest person's kryptonite

Prove this “tremendous” harm exists. (And please provide the necessary citations required for verifying your evidence.)

It’s amazing how quickly(and consistently) some people scamper off when presented with two simple words, ‘Citation Needed’. Almost as though they’re just making shit up and even they know it.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5

The evidence asked for in such requests are details; chumps like our troll brigade prefer to deal in vague ideas instead of specific facts…and hope everyone ignores their doing so.

Look at the chump I replied to: He mentions the idea of “tremendous harm”, but not only does he use “harm” instead of a more specific word or phrase (e.g., “loss of revenue”), he also avoids defining “tremendous” in a way that would let us measure his idea of “harm” against real-world facts. “Tremendous harm” can mean anything he wants it to mean.

It is a bullshitting tactic on par with Donald Trump’s overuse of vague platitudes such as “the best [x]” or “very [x]”. We may all be guilty of doing it every once in a while, but when you are conscisous of how it works, you can both stop yourself from doing it (as much) and see others using it to bluff their way through arguments where they are in way over their heads.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

Easy to prove if the pirates would be honest. All of you that have illegally copied and stored and used a movie, or a game, or a song, sign below with your phone number, Email and physical address, along with your social security and/or passport number.

Easy if liars were honest. Difficult only in this den of thieves.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:8 Re:

Personally, I don’t think I have copied or stored a single illegal work. That is, a copyrighted sing, or game, or book or movie that I did not pay for. I pay Apple for licenses for music and books and games and movies. I look at UTube for variety to sample things I have not bought. Not one illegal piece of copyrighted work in my collection. That’s how normal and honest people live. We don’t steal from others because it is morally wrong and also illegal with prescribed penalties and fines to dissuade the unsure that may be temped to infringe on the rights of others.

What this site always seems to ignore is that these laws are first and foremost to protect content Creators. The rest of the gibberish about “trolls” and “mean corporations” is just silliness. As a society, we want our people to create, and we try to encourage them to benefit monetarily from their creations. As a society, we want to slant the playing field in favor of those industrous few who create real value, and against those lazy jerks who steal from others.

Free everything means low quality everything. That’s why corporations give away the low quality stuff and charge money for the high quality stuff.

We don’t need more big rich corporations that buy their way into a market with their huge marketing budgets. We need more individual artists and engineers and writers and musicians and programmers to create great things, and we want to encourage them. That’s the point of copyright law.

The rest of copyright criticism is just crap by the heaping teaspoon mixed in with vile guttural obscenities, which this site is well known for.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:9 Re:

What this site always seems to ignore is that these laws are first and foremost to protect content Creators.

Copyright laws have always been about the needs of publishers. The abuse of the DMCA and contentid harm a lot of real creators in an effort to further enrich publishers, and the few creators in that they are currently pushing.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:11 Re:

When you consider that publishers accept less than 1% of all new works, and use copyright to gain control over those works, copyright is for publishers. Keep the day job has been standard advice for even published authors from way before the Internet existed.

Also consider that more than 500 hour of new content is uploaded to YouTube per minute, a lot of which will never get the the creators paid for their effort. The so called content industry is is in control of a very small part of human creativity, while thinking that they are the only important part.

The publishers were a dam in the way of creators finding an audience because they controlled access to limited production facilities for physical copies. The Internet has bypassed that dam, enabling anybody to self publish and try to fond an audience. Piracy is the drum they beat while trying to get laws passed that will enable them to dam up the Internet.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:9

I don’t think I have copied or stored a single illegal work. … Not one illegal piece of copyrighted work in my collection.

Think about how much stuff you look at on the Internet in a given day. Think about how many copyrighted images you may have viewed in that day. but if your browser’s cache contains even a single copy of a single copyrighted image for which you did not have permission to create a copy (or if you saved a copy for offline viewing), congratulations—you’re an infringer, Harry.

The point is this: Given the nature of copyright law, a person will inevitably infringe upon someone else’s copyright, even accidentally, at some point in a given day. Even people like you, who act all high and mighty because you do not illictly download copyrighted works, cannot escape this fact.

As a society, we want our people to create, and we try to encourage them to benefit monetarily from their creations.

Reminder: Creating and publishing a work is no guarantee of that work generating income. It is a crapshoot for everyone.

As a society, we want to slant the playing field in favor of those industrous few who create real value, and against those lazy jerks who [knowingly infringe upon copyrights].

This sounds like apologia for copyright laws that favor massive corporations (and their ownership/consolidation of major pieces of shared culture) than support for independent artists.

Free everything means low quality everything.

Prove it.

We don’t need more big rich corporations that buy their way into a market with their huge marketing budgets. We need more individual artists and engineers and writers and musicians and programmers to create great things, and we want to encourage them. That’s the point of copyright law.

Try telling that to the corporations who have used their power and influence to make sure copyright law favors the interests of said corporations rather than serve copyright’s original point.

The rest of copyright criticism is just crap

I take it that, when you say this, you take no issue with attacks on Fair Use, false DMCA claims, the use of copyright to silence someone (which is literally government-backed censorship), or copyright trolling such as the Prenda debacle. If you truly see no problems with those abuses of copyright law, you might want to check your hands—they might be covered in the bullshit you’ve been shovelling.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:9 Re:

“Personally, I don’t think I have copied or stored a single illegal work. “

So, you admit that it’s possible to inadvertently do such things? Interesting…

“I look at UTube for variety to sample things I have not bought. Not one illegal piece of copyrighted work in my collection”

Huh, interesting phrasing. So, what you’re saying is that you knowingly view infringing material on YouTube, but you think you’re morally superior because you did that rather than download them. Hmmm…

“We don’t need more big rich corporations that buy their way into a market with their huge marketing budgets”

Then, why is your entire schtick to defend them, even when the activities you defend actively harmful to both independent artists and the public as a whole?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:9 Re:

Bullshit mr “I doth protest too much.” You admit to watching You Tube which according to you copyright fanbois is 100% infringement. All that “sampling” is just copyright infringement plain and simple. Wait let me guess though. It’s not infringement when you do it. That’s the saddest thing about you fanbois you’re all bad liars and worse hypocrites.

So again what’s your real name?

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7 On the off chance you're being serious(which I doubt)...

The (accused) copyright infringers aren’t the ones making claims of ‘tremendous harm’, and as such have no burden of proof to meet, that’s all on the ones making those claims.

If the ‘harm’ really is so bad then it should be trivial to demonstrate it, yet neither the original comment nor yours has any such evidence in it, and as such both can be dismissed out of hand as utterly baseless(at best) until such evidence is presented.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:10 On the off chance you're being serious(which I doubt

What I heard recently is that Techdirt, along with Red Hat, are under investigation by the US Department of Justice. The investigation centers on both of them being financed by Chinese companies like TenCent with the intention of stealing US technology and undermining US law. Anyone else hear that? I heard it from 2 separate sources.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:15

That I do. And my argument is this: If someone makes an extraordinary claim such as “Techdirt … [is] under investigation by the US Department of Justice”, they must also present the evidence necessary to prove their claim is anything but bullshit. If the person making the claim fails to meet that burden, their claim can be summarily dismissed without further argument.

Unless the person who made that claim about Techdirt has the evidence to prove their claim true, I invoke Hitchens’s Razor: What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:9 Unless you're TRYING to shoot yourself in the foot...

It should be when one makes a claim and then refuses to provide evidence to support it, and would you look at that, still no evidence.

Why, it’s almost as though you have no evidence, and the more you refuse to provide it the stronger the case for that grows.

Either provide the evidence to support the claim, or admit you have none. Anything else is a dishonest waste of time to address, and can be neatly sliced to ribbons with Hitchen’s Razor.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:10 Unless you're TRYING to shoot yourself in the foot...

I invoke Sherlock Holmes. When you eliminate every other solution, the solution that remains is the correct solution.

Consider this question: Who does Techdirt advocate FOR? Clearly, they advocate AGAINST copyright law, patent law, individual ownership of IP, the laws that allow inventors and authors to protect their works, and the American people and system of justice.

All of these is advocacy FOR the Chinese. They are the ones that actually benefit from Open Source. Look at the numbers! They are efficient, totalitarian, ruthlesss and disingenuous. Their aim is clear, world dominance, with support from anti-American forces like Techdirt.

Prove that you don’t take money from the Chinese to advance their globalist takeover of the free world at the expense of American Patriots.

You can’t because you do.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:11

You made the claim that Techdirt advocates for, and takes money from, Chinese interests. Your claim requires evidence, which is not vague notions of “these positions are proof” (or willful misinterpretations of Techdirt’s positions in re: copyright). Provide the evidence or be dismissed without further argument.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:11 Unless you're TRYING to shoot yourself in the foot...

Open source and creative commons recognizes that creators build on the works of others, and it is only fair to let others in turn build on their works. This has the advantage that it maximizes creativity, and avoids the concentration of power in the hands of a few corporations.

Strong copyright and patents allow corporations to grab the works of others and exercise control over society to maximize their profit. Also that control more often that not means that those with new ideas are blocked from developing them themselves because they need the base of protected works to build on. this results in one or two corporations controlling a market, as the biggest buy out the smallest, and concentrate their control.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Gee, kids: everything is going the way I've

“Pirates need to be locked up since they are costing big internet companies a fortune, causing tremendous harm. The alternative is to dismantle copyright protection and we can’t have that.”

This is satire – right?

On a side note – it occurs to me that when the term “pirate” is used, it only implies an accusation of copyright infringement, not a court ruling. As far as I know, we do not lock up those accused of civil infractions.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Gee, kids: everything is going the w

“Better to just cut off their hands for being thieves. That might dissuade them and their criminal friends”

Again – as far as I know, in the US we do not cut off body parts of those accused of civil infractions.

Perhaps you would be better served in a country in which such practices were allowed.

Loftwork says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Gee, kids: everything is going the way I've

We’ve been through this before. Content providers swore blind that allowing video and audio taping would ruin the industry. It did nothing of the sort. My own experience is that since it’s increasingly difficult to hear what I’m buying before I buy it, there’s no point wasting the money. Back when internet radio like Live365 could pay royalties pro rata and survive on a shoestring, I bought a lot of CDs. Not anymore. Corporate greed is what’s killing the market, if anything.

Robert Beckman says:

This is a great idea

It’s a great idea for those who issue location identification information to be liable for the alleged activities at the addresses they issue. But this shouldn’t just be electronic addresses, it should be physical addresses too.

Henceforth, any allegations of criminal activity at any physical address should result in the immediate arrest (or SWATing) of the local elected officials.

Anonymous Coward says:

It used to be “Heil Hitler!” the Germans spouted being lead blindly by some jackass full of himself and wanting to control the world.
Now it’s “Heil Media!” instead, relying on blind faith that the bullshit they’re being fed has a oh-so-faint hint of maybe-truth to it when it’s nothing but lies and slander by some fucktard wanting to line his pockets with All The Money(tm)(c)(r).

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

“relying on blind faith that the bullshit they’re being fed has”

Speak for your self Biff. Not everyone is like you. Many people read multiple sources of “media” and filter out the obvious bullshit.

“nothing but lies and slander by some fucktard wanting to line his pockets”

This sounds a lot like our fearless leader.

WrongTShirt says:

Copying is theft

The idea that copying someone else’s work is not theft is upside down and backwards. The fact that computers and digital storage make copying easier does not lessen the crime of stealing someone else’s property.

And I would also remind you, nothing is free. If you can’t compete with free, it means you can’t compete with someone that has deeper pockets, which, of course, is often true. We want competition, competition is good. If only the rich compete, the rest of us suffer.

We want the starving artist, having slaved over his work, to succeed, not fail in the face of those who are better funded. Copyright helps the artist.

Pointing out the exception and ignoring the rule is just stupid, kids.

Wendy Cockcroft (profile) says:

Re: Copying is theft

The idea that copying someone else’s work is not theft is upside down and backwards. The fact that computers and digital storage make copying easier does not lessen the crime of stealing someone else’s property.

My computer copied this text in order to display it. I then copied it so I could reply. You still have access and use of it. Theft?

And I would also remind you, nothing is free. If you can’t compete with free, it means you can’t compete with someone that has deeper pockets, which, of course, is often true. We want competition, competition is good. If only the rich compete, the rest of us suffer.

Congratulations, your cognitive dissonance is working as intended. So much contradiction…!

We want the starving artist, having slaved over his work, to succeed, not fail in the face of those who are better funded. Copyright helps the artist.

Your art is worth what the market says it’s worth. If the artist can only make money by pretending only he can make copies of his work, he deserves to starve. You’re also pretending that copyright, in and of itself, provides an income. That’s not how copyright works. Ever. Copyright depends on people being willing to pay for the product. If nobody wants to buy it the artist starves despite his labour.

Pointing out the exception and ignoring the rule is just stupid, kids.

There is no exception to my points. Nobody is obliged to purchase something just because somebody slaved over it. I’m not a fan of Game of Thrones so I don’t buy GoT stuff. Oh no, the poor artists!!

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Copying is theft

The idea that copying someone else’s work is not theft is upside down and backwards.

Actually it is the idea that copying can be controlled that is backward,and indeed for most of human history copy other works was both the norm, and the way that ideas were spread. The idea that the author has a copyright is only about 300 years old, and makes some sense where copies are made by batch processes, so that the copies to meet the expected demand are all created before the first one is sold, and if two people of companies try to meet the same market for the same work, one or both will suffer a financial disaster due to unsold copies.

Anonymous Coward says:

If Calexit happens, it is possible that California could quickly break into 3 countries, one of them being the Republic Of Silicon Valley.

Internet companies in the Republic Of Silicon Valley would have only obey Silconian law, if that happened. They would not be subject to the laws of California, Jefferson, or the remaining United States.

This would SESTA and FOSTA uneforceable, if the Republic Of Silicon Valley came into existence, as Google, YouTube, and others would be in the Republic Of Silicon Valley, and US laws would not apply there.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...