Skip to main content

View Diary: Users are intentionally posting entire articles from copyright sources (237 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  This is probably an attempt to take down dkos (7+ / 0-)

    by way of the new legislation heading through congress as we speak.  One of the many (many, many, many) stupid things about these bills is that they make no differentiation between an open site where anyone can get an account and post anything they like versus a site where the content is generated by the site owner.  They are both treated the same, and the site itself gets screwed regardless of whether or not the copyright-violating content went through an approval process by the site operators first or was just "some random guy" posting it to the site.

    Also note that the bills don't allow a grace period for the site to have time to notice the violation and take it down.  So even a site with moderators that can censor a post after it is made still isn't safe because of the window of time between when the material is posted and when it is noticed and taken down.

    This is one of the biggest reasons Google is against this.  They run things like google+ and google groups and blogger, which are expressly FOR the purpose of letting any random shmuck create their own content.  (Also they are afraid of their search engine cache being a violation too - where you can look at the cache of a webpage that has gone away).

    As usual, internet laws are crafted by lobbyists who know how the internet works and have a devious purpose to break it, and then approved and passed by legislators who have no clue how the internet works and don't know the consequences of what they are passing.

    •  Correcting myself. (0+ / 0-)

      I'd done some more reading and there is a grace period now in the latest version of the bill.  It's only 5 days though.  It's still wrong that someone can claim a copyright violation has occurred with NO need to prove this in court, and use that to censor a post.  It was bad when the DMCA bill introduced that shitty system and this new bill makes it even worse because at least with the DMCA the penalty for not complying with the takedown was a lawsuit - a lawsuit you might win if you can prove your case that your use fell under fair use rules for parody or criticism - although most ISPs would cave and not let you make that argument, at least it was an option for the few who might.

      Whereas the penalty for not complying with the new law is death of the website BEFORE having that day in court to prove the usage was not a violation.  In other words, once you're accused you're already guilty.  There is no provision for defense.

    •  I knew about the 5 day "grace period", (0+ / 0-)

      egad another shitty phrase, but here's your best content: " One of the many (many, many, many) stupid things about these bills is that they make no differentiation between an open site where anyone can get an account and post anything they like versus a site where the content is generated by the site owner.  They are both treated the same, and the site itself gets screwed regardless of whether or not the copyright-violating content went through an approval process by the site operators first or was just "some random guy" posting it to the site."

      One of many problems yes, but a significant one.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site