Quote:
Originally Posted by kirant
This bill fails to work that way. It states that primarily distributors (sites which have the primary purpose of distributing illegally used wares) will be targetted. Torrent sites for example (and before it is asked, YouTube is not viewed or used as a primary distributor)
It basically reads that:
- The US Department of Justice, on recommendation from a company, may pursue charges against a foreign site for primary distribution. To do so, they must get a court order (which is pretty key. I think this part is skipped over by a lot of sources).
- If provided, the court has the power to ask that DNS service be denied (to be removed by Lamar Smith, the bill writer), freeze assets, remove them from search engines, and ask ad sites to have them stop appearing, based on what it thinks is required.
- This can be fought by appearing in the court and if the company is found to be attempting to abuse the law, they are liable for damages to the site holder.
Unintentional or minor distribution of links to illegal distributions sites (such as posting links on CP or Facebook) are not the scope of this law. Again, sites that distribute torrents, primarily distribute illegal data (such as a site that is primarily designed to host free movies via streaming), or sites with the primary purpose of finding these links (such as a search engine or database which takes a Google-esc approach to finding torrents or illegally streaming movies) are what is being looked at here.
...Also, I've never heard of a case yet of pursuing online photo piracy.
|
The issue is that the bill has the ability to leak into other areas, and as we've seen time and time again once a crack is created it will be utilized to go after unintended targets.
Basically I see it as an issue of a law that is overbroad and can easily be manipulated to target a vast array of activities at the whim of an entertainment company backed by a large legal department. They'll be able to make a case that will satisfy a judge, especially when they find a jurisdiction that favors their position, and the parties targeted will not be in a position to competently argue the claim. It's not the end of the world, but I think it's a bill that has the potential to become an issue down the road.