Seriously, what do you think will happen if every site has to worry about liability from the actions of it's users?
Do you think they will all weigh the risks and keep operating anyways? Or will they decide it's not worth it and shutdown or completely change their formats to something useless to the consumer? Do you think there wouldn't be ripple effects to the farthest edge of cyberspace because of it?
The real issue here is that ISPs are more than willing to allow their hosting services to be used by bad actors, because they feel that section 230 and others keep them from being liable. At this point, ISPs aren't even held to the same standard as a landlord in the real world. There is no risk, and only reward for ISPs who allow illegal activity on their networks.
You really think removing the Section 230 safe harbors is a good idea? Why? The only gain is that you would be able to place liability on bigger fish than those who are actually responsible for the infringements.
Removing the Section 230 harbors would be the biggest mistake ever concerning the internet. Way too much of the internet commerce depends on the 230 harbors. It would create an internet economic depression that rivals the Great Depression.
And why would this be done? So that a couple of industries can sue someone with money instead of the actual infringers?
I hope you lots of loot in your war chest for this, because there are tons of huge players out there (ATT, Google, Amazon, Microsoft, etc..) that will probably oppose you.
Clearly, anyone who goes to the effort of installing and using P2P software would be a music fan, as they wouldn't do it just for the act of doing it.
Not sure what you mean by P2P software, but torrent clients are part of the default install for most all Linux distributions and I believe (not an Apple fanboy) also on Macs. And for Windows, a 3 minute Google search, 1 click and there you go, not really much effort these days.
You people are scared to death of this idea, so you're trying to make it seem like rocket science or something.
I am not scared of this. Why would I be?
It's amazing to me that you think an artificial intelligence can be created that can determine whether something is infringing or not, when the content rights owners themselves can't figure it out (Viacom for example).
When the ISP makes their living off of the content, they should have some liablity.
What? You really think the ISP's make ALL of their money from your content? That's absurd. I would believe that most internet traffic is business related or legal content consumption (NetFlix, etc.) and really has nothing to do with infringing your content.
Photobucket isn't in the hosting business - they are in the content distribution business, and as such, should be liable for what is on their site.
And Photobucket will remove an infringing item when notified of it. It's still the content owner's responsibility to police their own IP, no one elses.
No one is telling you to lock your content up with copyrights. If you choose to do that, then bear the cost of policing it yourselves.
By calling them a "service provider" and allowing them to hide behind 230 and other provisions, you allow a business model predicated on copyright violation to flourish.
If you are so worried about it, make your own Photobucket site with your content only and then you can reap in all those piles of cash these sites are supposedly making.
Maybe NY Times has their fact checking department spending their resources on checking whether you, in fact, did pay for the paywall or if you are a cheapskate teenager or an unemployed bum or something.
Unfortunately, it's been marked as FGUO (For Gwiz's Use Only) and is classified.
I would have it unclassified for you to read, but the procedures to do that are FGWUO (For Gwiz's Wife's Use Only) and since she has a higher security clearance in my house then me (of course) I cannot.
I will attempt to have my comment reclassified as FAWFCU (For Anyone Who Friggin Care's Use Only) later when I get home with the proper bribes...er...gifts of flowers and chocolate. Will keep you advised.
He is is just playing with the system, acting rather smug. It will be a joy to see him lose in court and spend the rest of his life trying to explain it.
Wait...Geohot is playing the with system?
What would you call what Sony is doing? If demanding the details of everyone who viewed Geohot's blog or the YouTube video in order to cast fear at other hackers out there isn't "playing the system", I don't know what is.
Furthermore, it provides profit to those that make money in enforcement.
Absolutely, just take a gander at the industries spawned from the United States failed "War on Drugs".
Makes me wonder if some of those who have profited nicely on the drug war are shifting gears to jump into the infringement wars to keep their gravy trains rolling. As the drug legalization becomes a more and more popular notion, maybe they realize they need a new "enemy" to combat.