#metoo
European ISPs Want Rightsholders Held Accountable for Overblocking Damage
101–110 of 130 posts
Re: European ISPs Want Rightsholders Held Accountable for Overblocking Damage
#102It'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 mo…
> A few dollars per false claim seems like a good starting point to consider from.
False claims cause content to be taken down before the opportunity to respond. Timeliness has value. Even if the content is restored later, the damage has sometimes already been done. "a few dollars" is not reasonable. "The cost of the damage done, plus a further penalty" is closer to reasonable.
Re: European ISPs Want Rightsholders Held Accountable for Overblocking Damage
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
Everyone into childporn use uncensored models/sites deeply hidden from the public. Every single part of censorship is having a bad effect on the common world where normal people try to operate normally. The ones caught at this levels are not the interesting ones you want to catch.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Handley Hentai depicting animated/drawn fake children means that 0 children were harmed, thus CSAM rules do not apply. My guess is that slop generated CSAM images are NOT 'child sex assault' in any way. Are they icky? Uh, hell yeah. But it seems similar to hentai here. There's nobody being sexually assaulted. Hell, there is nobody at all - just a large multi-billion arra…
Yeah but they were still vulnerable to obscenity charges- in the case you cite Handley took a plea deal and served six months in jail because he was certain that the jury would find him guilty of obscenity (the deal kept him from having to register as a sex offender).
Obscenity has no 1st Amendment protections. As defined by the Supreme Court the standards for it are they are relative to the community around you, n.b. the physical community not the virtual one. So, when a victim of a non-consensual generated CSAM image sues a company in her (99% of such victims are women) locale, who would the jury rather vote for, the underage victim of a non-consensual generated CSAM image, or the company that generated the image?
Re: European ISPs Want Rightsholders Held Accountable for Overblocking Damage
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> you wouldn’t need to track non CP content to track people downloading CP.
May be not, but you need to be able to track down CP content viewers. How can you identify them without identifiable info of all porn watchers?
What if someone accidentally clicks on such a piece. How long should they be viewing it to be considered a violator?
Re: European ISPs Want Rightsholders Held Accountable for Overblocking Damage
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 mo…
> A few dollars per false claim seems like a good starting point to consider from. False claims cause content to be taken down before the opportunity to respond. Timeliness has value. Even if the content is restored later, the damage has sometimes already been done. "a few dollars" is not reasonable. "The cost of the damage done, plus a further penalty" is closer to reasonable.
Arguing the "cost of the damage done" will ultimately require lawyers
Re: European ISPs Want Rightsholders Held Accountable for Overblocking Damage
#106It'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...
Isnt taking down illegal content censorship? If not you can get around the absolute statement “censorship is always bad” by just making more things illegal. I think censorship is so clearly good in some scenarios that we would never think to even debate it. Like child porn.
You could just flag whatever you don't like as child porn. It would get taken down instantly and you'll get effectively silenced by presumption of guilt.
Yes you might appeal, but at that time your content might not be relevant and you will no be compensated for damages.
Re: European ISPs Want Rightsholders Held Accountable for Overblocking Damage
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
You're completely right, of course; Savage is an "advice columnist" and activist, not a journalist or investigator. I was familiar with his columns in the free-to-take rags out on the streets here.
It's nevertheless true that Savage didn't need to be a "journalist": he enjoyed a bully pulpit, a sizable cadre of fervent followers, and a powerful platform to launch his activist projects, and in the modern climate, a lot more sympathetic in mass media circles than Santorum's socially-conservative views and policies.
Re: European ISPs Want Rightsholders Held Accountable for Overblocking Damage
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Handley Hentai depicting animated/drawn fake children means that 0 children were harmed, thus CSAM rules do not apply. My guess is that slop generated CSAM images are NOT 'child sex assault' in any way. Are they icky? Uh, hell yeah. But it seems similar to hentai here. There's nobody being sexually assaulted. Hell, there is nobody at all - just a large multi-billion arra…
How do we know the training data did not contain child sexual assault and that’s what’s used to generate “accurate” images? “Just a multi million array of floats” could be applied to anything once it’s digitally encoded.
Someone could draw a 100% realistic depiction of a CSAM from memory. Would he be liable?
Re: European ISPs Want Rightsholders Held Accountable for Overblocking Damage
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A few dollars per false claim seems like a good starting point to consider from. False claims cause content to be taken down before the opportunity to respond. Timeliness has value. Even if the content is restored later, the damage has sometimes already been done. "a few dollars" is not reasonable. "The cost of the damage done, plus a further penalty" is closer to reasonable.
Arguing the "cost of the damage done" will ultimately require lawyers
Sure. But ultimately, the right fix would be to give time for counter-notice before taking the content down.
Re: European ISPs Want Rightsholders Held Accountable for Overblocking Damage
#110Here is a dumb idea, lets do innocent until proven guilty. If you don't dispute the claim the content is taken down. If you do dispute it it stays up until guilt is confirmed, then you get fined and the content is taken down.