[athanatos]

Originally Posted by Kentl

So why cant the sites take responsibility done by pepole on their sites?

whats the difrrince?

Because in the case of the household, the person who receives the service from their ISP authorizes and agrees to be held liable for all use. That's what the contract is for and usually stipulates very clearly.

Now in the case of holding the website that provides the service responsible: we would want to hold the one who posted the information on the site responsible, not the site itself. I loved Ax's analogy elsewhere: if someone buys a Remington rifle and kills someone else, should the court go after the company that provided the gun, or the one who misused it? Definitely the one who misused it, because its misuse is the entire problem. Remington did nothing wrong.

Same with most sites with interactive content. The ones posting illegal content are the source of the misuse. Moreover, the whole point of punishment is to discourage misuse. You want to create a deterrent for those who would damage or endanger others or their assets. If we went after the companies rather than the delinquent individuals then we are discouraging business and not addressing the problem at its source.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by Kentl

So why cant the sites take responsibility done by pepole on their sites?

whats the difrrince?

Kentl. A Noob posted 4 copyrighted songs a few days ago. You are arguing that because a n00b did that, (and I pulled it down and infracted the user) we should be shut down and removed from the internet by the government.


You are being ridiculous.

The difference is that in a house there is a reasonable expectation that you abide by the terms of your contract.

Now, that is different than the government killing sites based on allegation of misuse.

I am legally liable for what my family does on my wifi. Pauler should not be for what you post on this site.

[Kentl]

Originally Posted by athanatos

Because in the case of the household, the person who receives the service from their ISP authorizes and agrees to be held liable for all use. That's what the contract is for and usually stipulates very clearly..

is it not so for websites? do we not have a law on what happens with siteS?

Now in the case of holding the website that provides the service responsible: we would want to hold the one who posted the information on the site responsible, not the site itself. I loved Ax's analogy elsewhere: if someone buys a Remington rifle and kills someone else, should the court go after the company that provided the gun, or the one who misused it? Definitely the one who misused it, because its misuse is the entire problem. Remington did nothing wrong.

and yet its okay to have the person at the home get in toeruble when he had nothing to do with it besides supply it?

I smell a double standard which is far worse then anything eles IMO

if a person who supplys the computer gets in trouble why cant not the person who supllys the site? both ahve a very unlikely chance of knowing what said person is doing.

Same with most sites with interactive content. The ones posting illegal content are the source of the misuse. Moreover, the whole point of punishment is to discourage misuse. You want to create a deterrent for those who would damage or endanger others or their assets. If we went after the companies rather than the delinquent individuals then we are discouraging business and not addressing the problem at its source.

and finfe who ever owns the computer is doing this how?
its not.

[thesteve]

I'm so lost at this point...

Shawn, do you think SOPA is something we should have? Is your argument that SOPA shutting down websites is no different than copyright law that forces ISPs to hand over information to copyright holders when a violation has occurred?

[Kentl]

Originally Posted by thesteve

I'm so lost at this point...

Shawn, do you think SOPA is something we should have? Is your argument that SOPA shutting down websites is no different than copyright law that forces ISPs to hand over information to copyright holders when a violation has occurred?

No, I'm just saying your saying its bad becuyse a person who had nothing to do with it gets blamed yet your other plan dose the same thing.
blames someone who has nothing to do with it.


like I said evrey one says its a bad plan and either
A. wont come up with another
B. come up with another that dose the same thing but since it dont affect them its more "right"
C. come with one that dont work.

[thesteve]

Originally Posted by Kentl

No, I'm just saying your saying its bad becuyse a person who had nothing to do with it gets blamed yet your other plan dose the same thing.
blames someone who has nothing to do with it.

Without knowing more about how the TOS agreements are set up between websites and the companies that supply server space, I don't feel like I can accurately say if the two ideas are the same.

I can't speak for others in this thread, but I readily admit that I don't know both sides of the argument well. I do think that there is probably supposed to be some level of legal protection afforded to websites that supply site TOS forms that state that users must hold the copyright to any materials they post on the site. I do think there is a difference between a site owner and a computer owner because of the nature of the legal agreements binding each person, I am just unsure as to what that separation is.

[Kentl]

Originally Posted by thesteve

Without knowing more about how the TOS agreements are set up between websites and the companies that supply server space, I don't feel like I can accurately say if the two ideas are the same.

I can't speak for others in this thread, but I readily admit that I don't know both sides of the argument well. I do think that there is probably supposed to be some level of legal protection afforded to websites that supply site TOS forms that state that users must hold the copyright to any materials they post on the site. I do think there is a difference between a site owner and a computer owner because of the nature of the legal agreements binding each person, I am just unsure as to what that separation is.

But we are not even talking about legal, if this law where to pass it would make it so, pepole dont like it cause its wrong to harm the person who supplys it, yet they dont care if the computer owner gets in toruble

They basicly dont want the sites to be in toruble cause it would suck for them, someone eles dose? even if they did not do it? no problem then, thats my problem wit this.

We either agree that
A. the person who suplys something (without knoladge of what they will do) can be relaiable
or they cant.
to me its not fair to do it any other wya.

[thesteve]

Originally Posted by Kentl

They basicly dont want the sites to be in toruble cause it would suck for them, someone eles dose? even if they did not do it? no problem then, thats my problem wit this.

We either agree that
A. the person who suplys something (without knoladge of what they will do) can be relaiable
or they cant.
to me its not fair to do it any other wya.

I think the question really has to do with numbers. Do we punish the masses by shutting down websites based on the actions of a few, or do we find a way to make laws that punish the individuals who are submitting the illegal material in the first place?

[Kentl]

Originally Posted by thesteve

I think the question really has to do with numbers. Do we punish the masses by shutting down websites based on the actions of a few, or do we find a way to make laws that punish the individuals who are submitting the illegal material in the first place?

the problem with this is in my case its not him doing it, most of the time the person who owns it woluld get fined not the one who did it.

If I go on to my best frinds computer and download, he could be the one to get fined.

thats whats wrong to me, and dose nothing to stop piracy

[thesteve]

Originally Posted by Kentl

the problem with this is in my case its not him doing it, most of the time the person who owns it woluld get fined not the one who did it.

If I go on to my best frinds computer and download, he could be the one to get fined.

thats whats wrong to me, and dose nothing to stop piracy

To be fair, in the cases I've seen where some prosecution has occurred, there were multiple cease-and-desist letters ignored.