You keep ignoring the basic issues, that sites that are not generally used for piracy are surely not going to get the bums rush for a single link or a single offending file.
You keep ignoring history. Sites like mp3.com The Pirate Bay were accused of copyright infringement the moment they entered the market. The legacy media conglomerate won't wait for a single link or single file. They will, as they always have, attack any innovative new technology that reduces the need for gatekeepers.
I wouldn't use rapidshare, as it is one of the most common sites for pirate content. I wouldn't use megaupload or similar sites either, they are cesspools.
How would you know they are used for infringing content or are cesspools if you don't use them. It appears you are not well versed in logic either.
Perhaps the best way to explain it is that you should try to use sites that aren't obviously in the piracy game, and you won't have issues.
Dedicated to infringing content by who's definition? According to Viacom, YouTube is "obviously in the piracy game." Yet it is one of the most popular sites for sharing user-generated video.
Please refine your arguments and come back.
If the law passes video upload sites like Break, Redtube, et al, add some fields to the upload video form to collect the information the content industry will sue them over.
After that, Bugmenot comes back to provide the right answers for those fields to people who want to upload infringing content. Of course, with YouTube alone receiving 48 hours of new footage every minute, Bugmenot will never be able to keep up with this rapidly expanding market. Innovative new services will spring up to compete...
Wait a minute, this will create new jobs and be a boon to the economy! They're freaking geniuses! Pass SOPA immediately!
The issue isn't going to be random comment posts on a site, is it? That isn't the piracy issue anyone is attempting to address here.
Yes it is! If I posted the entire Twilight novel in a comment here, under the proposed changes to copyright law, Techdirt would be liable for my infringement.
Unless you're saying only some copyrights will be enforced. Music and movies get the censorship powers China can only dream of but books are just dead trees not worth protecting? You got yours and leave the publishers out to dry, huh?
So what happens if Vimeo, Break, Redtube, et al, add extra fields on the upload video form to have the user verify that the upload is authorized? The legislation passed and video sharing sites added questions on the form to verify the uploader is authorized to upload the content.
What happens is Bugmenot comes back to provide the right answers for those fields to people who want to upload infringing content. Of course, with YouTube alone receiving 48 hours of new footage every minute, Bugmenot will never be able to keep up with this rapidly expanding market. Innovative new services will spring up to compete...
Wait a minute, this will create new jobs and be a boon to the economy! They're freaking geniuses! Pass SOPA immediately!
Wow, that was almost logical, consistent, and well thought out. If only you had put as much effort into drafting the legislation as you're putting into shilling the legislation, the internet would be a much better place.
A "moron in a hurry" programmed their website.
Remember that show, I think it was World's Funniest Commercials and it was hosted by Dick Clark and Ed McMahon? It was just all the funniest commercials from all over the place. I'd buy episodes of a show like that. Or this year's Super Bowl ads. Put that up for sale Saturday so people can start talking about them and have some to look forward to. Do something like that and I'd pay for shows of just ads. Now that is an advertiser's dream.
If they're quick like Hulu ads I'd jump on it but if they're padding out a short show with long commercial breaks then, no, it's not worth it.
When I cut the cord and started watching everything on Hulu, my TV viewing actually went up! Because they weren't padding out 45 minutes of show into an hour time slot my viewing went up by a third. I could watch four episodes in the time it used to take to watch just three.
So, again, streaming free with ads from an official source that doesn't waste my time? Please, the sooner the better, more, more, more. Try to return to the glory days of broadcast? I've got better things to do, like watch your show.
And despite jumping through those hoops and using what has to be the most technically inefficient set-up, they were still sued out of business by a media dinosaur.
I have to wonder if this isn't being done on purpose by some perverse genius trying to drive innovation towards an unbreakable distribution scheme. Just like music sharing after Napster, every time the MAFIAA finds and kills one of these companies, their replacements are always more efficient and more secure distribution models. At this point this has to be purposeful action.
came in here to say this.
So now Google's got a whole package set: a dedicated manufacturing and marketing channel, a decent sized if not decent quality patent portfolio, and the tax breaks of a company operating at a loss to balance out their huge profits. I think Google knows what their doing and they're going to come out way ahead.
I don't think that Tor is going to have a very long life span.
And yet...
If they want to start that arms race, it'll happen just like the pointless fight against file-sharing networks. Tor is already decentralized and encrypted. The next version of Tor would add rotating exit nodes, cycling through its network for that next level of difficulty to break it.
Speaking out against vaccines is exercising your right to free speech. Not getting a vaccine makes you a threat to public health. Completely different situations.
Anyone who refuses a vaccine without a medically valid reason should be quarantined for their own safety.
This is like making you responsible for the spam when I "joe job" your email address for my ad campaign.
By the way, any guys out there want to add two inches?
Floyd, we've already blown apart the strawmen in your letter but let's go over it one more time.
"Copyright violations are not protected by the First Amendment." No shit, Sherlock. And no one is saying that illegal activities are protected speech except the stakeholders pushing for expansive copyright. Every time this lie is repeated like it was ever part of the debate is an attempt to obscure the issue.
"...stealing is somehow less offensive when carried out online." No, stealing is always stealing. Moving any crime, even stealing, online does not suddenly make it legal or more glamorous.
"[I]t protects creators of speech... by combating its theft.? Repeat after us: "Infringement is not theft." Rights' holders, unlike victims of grand theft auto, are not deprived of tangible property. They may be deprived of potential revenue but, while that issue is faced by everyone making bad business decisions, that is not a crime.
It was the politard who said, "The nerds tell me there's no danger so you don't have to be prepared." He should be tried as an accessory.
/be prepared
If it's going to call itself a burger, it had better have been mooing.
I envision a not-too-distant future where all web browsers are essentially bit-torrent clients. What could be more decentralized?
Content hosts put up node 0 and every viewer becomes a leech. The more viewers, like for a viral video, the more the bandwidth is distributed. That's where the mainstream adoption will be, these high-bandwidth hosts like YouTube and Netflix. Building it into the browser will be the mainstream adoption because obviously the technology already exists.
Re:
It's hardly voluntary. If the payment processor doesn't cut off the accused, they become liable for the possible infringement as if they were hosting the content themselves. The burden of proof is on the accused that they were not infringing. There is no provision to punish false accusations or fraudulent takedowns and no requirement to restore service if the accused is vindicated.