|
|
Posted by Bill on 12/07/06 14:25
Question-- out of genuine curiousity. Was this law related to the issue
of whether or not any ISP or host might be liable for material posted on
their websites that might be actionable for other reasons, like libel,
national security, pornography, etc.? It might be arguable that the ISP
is analagous to telephone service providers, who would never be held
liable if, for example, two criminals plotted a drug deal on the phone.
The victim could not sue the phone company for allowing their lines to
be used to faciliate illegal activity.
Someone in Congress may have legitimately come to the conclusion that
the benefits of the internet outweigh the damage to the interests of
copyright holders, or, for example, celebrities who find their
reputations besmirched but can't sue the carrier of the information.
Just wondering aloud...
A lot of people place a pretty high value on the fact that the internet
is not controlled the way television is. That's a tradeoff worth
considering, and it may be that copyright owners will just have to learn
to live with it, the way most of us have to learn to live with spam.
PTravel wrote:
> Just to be clear, Youtube hasn't created the position, but is exploiting a
> position that was created by lobbyists who wrote bad law that was enacted by
> Congresspeople who were concerned about protecting the interests of those
> putting money in their pockets. I can't blame Youtube for implementing a
> business model that is wholly and completely legal.
>
>
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|