Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

European ISPs Want Rightsholders Held Accountable for Overblocking Damage

torrentfreak.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 130 posts

Re: European ISPs Want Rightsholders Held Accountable for Overblocking Damage

#91

Post by chuckadams »

GuB-42 wrote: post #86
gonzalohm wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those are my thoughts too. I believe there was a world cup or euro cup during the 2008 crisis, which Spain suffered specially badly. All countries were getting out of the "hole" except Spain, but hey we won the euro cup so suddenly our country was the best and everyone forgot about it

Which I believe is a good thing. An economic crisis is tough, let people have some joy. I am not into spectator sports, and certainly not soccer, but the positives emotions that go with it are worth it, I think. If you think about it, how often do you hear good news? A war here, a disaster there, a mass murder,... And it is not because of the current world situation, it is always the case, we usually don't talk about…

Perhaps sports are a net benefit overall, but these are multi-billion-euro companies who don't deserve to keep getting handouts and special favors from the government to supply it.

Re: European ISPs Want Rightsholders Held Accountable for Overblocking Damage

#92

Post by john01dav »

bradley13 wrote: post #12

It's not just Europe. DMCA takedowns in the US: no liability for taking down innocent content. Really, it comes down to this: censorship is bad. Always. If someone violates the law, get a court judgement. With the judgement in hand, take down that specific material. Too much work? Tough...

> Too much work? Tough...

Making justice available only to people with monetary (and in US courts at least, wealth is a strong predictor of outcome) and other relevant resources is not the kind of thing that I want society getting worse on.

DMCA enforcement of copyright is thus fundamentally a good law, and in my opinion should only be tweaked to deal with the pathological cases on platforms like YouTube, and even more so what's happening in YouTube.

Some mild disincentive against incorrect DMCA takedown requests being filed seems reasonable to me, as long as it scales with the level of inflicted damage. A few dollars per false claim seems like a good starting point to consider from. That makes a legitimate mistake by a human not a major issue, but also maked unleashing inaccurate mass bots and performing extremely overly broad blocking deeply unprofitable.

Of course, the broad EU blocks aren't governed by US's DMCA, but the basic incentive argument applies there too I think.

Re: European ISPs Want Rightsholders Held Accountable for Overblocking Damage

#93

Post by chuckadams »

ButlerianJihad wrote: post #36
axus wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rick Santorum was a public figure, his name is fair game.

It only took 13 minutes for an account to bulls-eye exactly the incident I was referring to. Sure, "fair game", whatever, how can you "censor" a grassroots parody/mockery like this? Part of the game was, it wasn't actually stoppable in any meaningful fashion. It seems rude, unethical, puerile even, to do this name-calling and dragging through the mud, if you will, and it was perpetrated/spearheaded, so to speak, by a…

> It seems rude, unethical, puerile even, to do this name-calling and dragging through the mud, if you will, and it was perpetrated/spearheaded, so to speak, by a journalist whose morals and platform encouraged that sort of tactic.

Dan Savage would howl with laughter at the notion of being called a journalist. The morals and platform of the target did most of the work.

Re: European ISPs Want Rightsholders Held Accountable for Overblocking Damage

#94

Post by robocat »

bawolff wrote: post #38
bradley13 wrote: post #12

It's not just Europe. DMCA takedowns in the US: no liability for taking down innocent content. Really, it comes down to this: censorship is bad. Always. If someone violates the law, get a court judgement. With the judgement in hand, take down that specific material. Too much work? Tough...

> It's not just Europe. DMCA takedowns in the US: no liability for taking down innocent content. Isn't it under penalty of purjury?

Penalty of perjury in what jurisdiction?

Even wholly within the US, perjury appears to be low cost: businesses make a tradeoff between legal risks and profits.

Re: European ISPs Want Rightsholders Held Accountable for Overblocking Damage

#95

Post by samgranieri »

The sheer amount of internet disruption that goes on in Spain during soccer matches is just absolutely insane. People who pay for internet service and use it responsibly should not have their service disrupted by people pirating soccer matches. I can’t imagine the investors of the internet companies in Spain are happy about this either.

Re: European ISPs Want Rightsholders Held Accountable for Overblocking Damage

#96

Post by hgoel »

bradley13 wrote: post #12

It's not just Europe. DMCA takedowns in the US: no liability for taking down innocent content. Really, it comes down to this: censorship is bad. Always. If someone violates the law, get a court judgement. With the judgement in hand, take down that specific material. Too much work? Tough...

That just leads to a copyright system that favors big corpos even more than it does already.

Re: European ISPs Want Rightsholders Held Accountable for Overblocking Damage

#97

Post by signatoremo »

Retric wrote: post #49
nonethewiser wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But my point is some censorship is good. Such as child porn. We can disagree on what constitutes child porn in practice but you arent saying nothing should be censored right? You do think there is such thing as child porn right? And that it should be censored? Im not claiming more censorship is better. So I agree it could be overapplied. Im saying some censorship is clearly good.

I don’t think it’s inherently obvious that censorship is the right tool for CP. I’d rather track people downloading CP than prevent them from being able to find it and thus not know who was more likely to be a child predator. Of course any negative outcomes without due process is problematic but there’s tradeoffs here. Now people paying for CP (including online advertising) creates an incentive to create CP so that’s…

How do you track them? That means you'd have to know all porn watchers. That's privacy violation. It's no difference than the age verification debate raging on here. Violation of the privacy of the majority for a tiny amount of violation.

Re: European ISPs Want Rightsholders Held Accountable for Overblocking Damage

#98

Post by Retric »

signatoremo wrote: post #97
Retric wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think it’s inherently obvious that censorship is the right tool for CP. I’d rather track people downloading CP than prevent them from being able to find it and thus not know who was more likely to be a child predator. Of course any negative outcomes without due process is problematic but there’s tradeoffs here. Now people paying for CP (including online advertising) creates an incentive to create CP so that’s…

How do you track them? That means you'd have to know all porn watchers. That's privacy violation. It's no difference than the age verification debate raging on here. Violation of the privacy of the majority for a tiny amount of violation.

> all porn watchers

That doesn’t follow, you wouldn’t need to track non CP content to track people downloading CP.

YouTube doesn’t want legal porn on its servers, and I suspect most porn websites aren’t going to want CP either especially if it makes collecting revenue illegal as per the second part of my post.

Thus whatever is currently being used would likely to continue to be used.

Re: European ISPs Want Rightsholders Held Accountable for Overblocking Damage

#99

Post by nonethewiser »

Retric wrote: post #49
nonethewiser wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But my point is some censorship is good. Such as child porn. We can disagree on what constitutes child porn in practice but you arent saying nothing should be censored right? You do think there is such thing as child porn right? And that it should be censored? Im not claiming more censorship is better. So I agree it could be overapplied. Im saying some censorship is clearly good.

I don’t think it’s inherently obvious that censorship is the right tool for CP. I’d rather track people downloading CP than prevent them from being able to find it and thus not know who was more likely to be a child predator. Of course any negative outcomes without due process is problematic but there’s tradeoffs here. Now people paying for CP (including online advertising) creates an incentive to create CP so that’s…

>I don’t think it’s inherently obvious that censorship is the right tool for CP.

Very interesting.

What about revenge porn? A scorned lover who posts explicit content of their ex.

Re: European ISPs Want Rightsholders Held Accountable for Overblocking Damage

#100

Post by Retric »

nonethewiser wrote: post #99
Retric wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think it’s inherently obvious that censorship is the right tool for CP. I’d rather track people downloading CP than prevent them from being able to find it and thus not know who was more likely to be a child predator. Of course any negative outcomes without due process is problematic but there’s tradeoffs here. Now people paying for CP (including online advertising) creates an incentive to create CP so that’s…

>I don’t think it’s inherently obvious that censorship is the right tool for CP. Very interesting. What about revenge porn? A scorned lover who posts explicit content of their ex.

IMO, that falls under the same umbrella as copyright in terms of distribution.

The actor in a porn needs to sign over their rights before you can distribute it. If you’ve got all the proper paperwork then it doesn’t matter if it’s your ex and they want to retroactively remove permission. On the other hand if you’ve don’t then the ex has the same protections as Disney has over one of their movies.

Now we can call this censorship, but it’s rather stretching the definition.

Post reply on HN