European ISPs Want Rightsholders Held Accountable for Overblocking Damage

Post by someonebaggy » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 11:16 AM UTC

masklinn wrote: post #113

bawolff wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Oh no, the only part under penalty of perjury is the complaining party misrepresenting their authorisation by the rights holder (17 USC § 512(c)(3)(A)(iv)). So if you DMCA HN, claiming that this thread infringes on Moana the possible perjury would be for claiming to represent Disney. Now in theory the content claims are made under the good faith standard (17 USC § 512(c)(3)(A)(v)), and in theory the complaining party…

Post by someonebaggy » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 11:18 AM UTC

tialaramex wrote: post #60

btasker wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>they should have stood firm or offer up the 'Oh no we couldn't possibly figure out how to do that, it's entirely too complicated, you wouldn't understand.' excuse all other tech companies put out whenever they are told to do something trivial. Here in the UK, that's basically what BT said back in the early days of rights holders trying to block this stuff. The rights holders took them to court and managed to get the…

And importantly that rule meant that if your ISP doesn't have censorship filters, the anti-piracy people can't touch them. That's why Andrews and Arnold (aa.net.uk) is the way it is. After all, who can say how much AA should spend to stop their customers from committing crimes? Should they spend $100 per customer? $100 per week? $100 per day? How much extra money are you required to spend to stop other people committ…

Post by someonebaggy » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 11:19 AM UTC

wmf wrote: post #90

bethekidyouwant wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Policing its customers” what do you want cloud-flair to do?

For one thing they could put pirate sites on a separate IP so when that IP gets blocked it doesn't take out legitimate sites.

Post by chuckadams » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 12:57 PM UTC

ButlerianJihad wrote: post #107

chuckadams wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 lo…

Post by nekusar » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 2:58 PM UTC

mandevil wrote: post #103

nekusar wrote: post #65

Earlier 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…

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…