- Obi Wan Stevobi
- |
- Exalted Mythic Member
Posted by: L00
Posted by: Obi Wan Stevobi
Posted by: L00
Posted by: Obi Wan Stevobi
. . . Large domestic sites like Youtube, Google, and Facebook are already subject to the DMCA that covers pirated material within the US jurisdiction. The major concern of those large sites is that the bill is so poorly written that is not clear if it will supersede safe harbor clauses in the DMCA that provides them legal protection from any criminal activities of users on their sites . . .In your opinion, what part of it is vague or poorly written in that regard?
wording issues:
Section 103 allows companies to blacklist other companies if:
site-
11 (I) is taking, or has taken, delib
12 erate actions to avoid confirming a
13 high probability of the use of the
14 U.S.-directed site to carry out acts
15 that constitute a violation of section
16 501 or 1201 of title 17, United States
17 Code; or
18 (II) operates the U.S.-directed
19 site with the object of promoting, or
20 has promoted, its use to carry out
21 acts that constitute a violation of sec
22 tion 501 or 1201 of title 17, United
23 States Code, as shown by clear ex
24 pression or other affirmative steps
25 taken to foster infringement.
This could be interpreted as the site did not respond to request to take down infringing material, or it could also mean that any site that doesn't actively police itself on it's own can be taken down. There is no definition of what constitutes "deliberate actions not to confirm material in violation"
Major sharing sites do not have mods that review all site content. Therefore, they might not be considered to be doing their part to enforce copyright law, even if they do respond quickly to takedown requests, and subject to blacklist.That's pretty clearly defined in title 17, though, in the sections of chapters 5 and 12 following sections 501 and 1201. That hasn't yet meant self-policing, luckily for youtube!My favorite wording in the bill is the recent ammendment stating "Implementation should not break DNSEC". That was added when prominent computer scientists pointed out that this bill could break security features built into the DNS system. Instead of legislating how to accomplish this DNS filtering, lawmakers simply added what amounts to "Hey nerds, make sure this doesn't compromise our security as well, I'm sure you'll figure it out."Haha, more jobs for us nerds, though, right? Maybe it's actually a job creation initiative in disguise :-p
Well, implementation of the government controlled firewall will take a lot of extra man hours from ISPs. That may mean a few jobs. Will also mean higher internet bills for customers, and would also mean we now live in a country with a government controlled firewall. Still No thanks.