Dutch Court Says Just Publishing Links To A Movie Is Illegal And Must Be Blocked
from the technically-clueless dept
It's still amazing that any court thinks that just publishing links to something should be illegal, but it seems to happen again and again. Over in the Netherlands, usenet community FTD, has lost a case filed by a movie studio, because some of its users pointed out links where you could download a certain movie. FTD didn't host the movie. It didn't store the movie. The movie never touched its servers. FTD didn't offer a torrent of the movie. All it did was let users post where the files existed. And the court found that to be illegal and barred. One of these days, maybe we can expect judges to understand basic technology concepts, but it seems like that day is still a long way off.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, links, netherlands
Companies: ftd
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
WTF?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WTF? That's like locking people up because they tell you which house on the block is the crack house.
And even if they don't , they may be able to.
It is called "aiding and abetting" . A well know legal concept.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: WTF? That's like locking people up because they tell you which house on the block is the crack house.
You can say anything about the law, you are not a lawyers, you are not a judge and doing so makes you dumb.
At least according to what you wrote.
Personally I think you are just an idiot, that keeps pulling things out of your ass, but that is just me, you don't add anything to the discussion, I don't see the interesting parts or any valid concerns not that there are any, there may be some is just that on your vitriolic ramblings I just don't pay that much attention LoL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: WTF? That's like locking people up because they tell you which house on the block is the crack house.
you are an idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: WTF? That's like locking people up because they tell you which house on the block is the crack house.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
things that make you go ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WTF = NWO
Only going to get better from here (from their POV at least).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@1 let me correct that
What i think will now happen is people might just shut up about things and keep things uber secret and in small places rather then large sites
WHY NOT , why give them 10 targets when 500000 will be harder to watch
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
adlib to correction
YOU know its there so your guilty of what goes on there.
SEE how that can back fire
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's still amazing that any court thinks that just publishing links to something should be illegal,
Learn Dutch Law too.
your comment is silly in the extreme
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's still amazing that any court thinks that just publishing links to something should be illegal,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's still amazing that any court thinks that just publishing links to something should be illegal,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
then only artists should comment on the arts.
Well now that you mention it .... it ain't a bad idea.
As the saying goes in Art : "nobody likes a critic."
And as a mater of fact in "Formal Literary review", like the NYTimes . book section , and the NY Review of Books , (- two very stuffy , nose in the air publications if you ask me **),
most articles of review, the majority even ,, ARE written by other professional writers,, other novelists ,, not just journalists.
( *** http://www.nybooks.com/)
-----
As well with music ,, this is also often true. Musicians nowadays are often the ones hired to write reviews of music,
Related to this,,
this is why Bob Dylan , Tom Petty , and other musicians , have now their own satellite radio DJ programs.
Because many folks , do not like non-Artist as .critics,
and satellite radio , gives Dylan and Petty a chance to present the music from a Musicians viewpoint.
-------------------
"If only lawyers can comment on the law ,,then only artists should comment on the arts. "
Intelligent comments on law , come for people educated in law.
Real Wold comments on law are call COURTS.
Courts , critic laws. Their critic is real-world impact.
Everyone's non-legal minded comments here about law is meaningless in that context.
====================
Main Entry: crit·ic
Pronunciation: \ˈkri-tik\
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin criticus, from Greek kritikos, from kritikos able to discern or judge, from krinein
Date: 1588
1 a : one who expresses a reasoned opinion on any matter especially involving a judgment of its value, truth, righteousness, beauty, or technique
b : one who engages often professionally in the analysis, evaluation, or appreciation of works of art or artistic performances
2 : one given to harsh or captious judgment
-------------
----------------------
Lobbyist for the most are Lawyers.
So yes, "only lawyers can comment on the law" , in the formation of public policy in legislative is mostly true.
In the Courts . legal decisions _- the only commentary that really counts !!!- are written , by Judges.
Judges are lawyers.
-------------------------
So yes : Being ONLY lawyers comment 'Formally" and "Realistically" with real world effect on the law.....
.... then only artists should have FORMAL comment on the arts.
A lot of people DO feel this way.
And remember paid Critics are 1] professional writers and/or 2] professional broadcast journalists.
----------------------------------------------
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: then only artists should comment on the arts.
The more copies of art there are the more art there is and more art is a good thing. Who would dare say different?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: then only artists should comment on the arts.
Yes . if the copying is outside of COPYright laws.
--------------
(why do , bother coming here? Because I hate Pirates stealing peoples work, and techdirt is full of Pirates -- if the earbud fits wear it !! )
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: then only artists should comment on the arts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's still amazing that any court thinks that just publishing links to something should be illegal,
"First Up Against The Wall When The Revolution Comes" is a quote from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. My own personal belief is people like you will become "The first in line at the soup kitchen". Because of an emerging trend that was spotted a couple years back. The trend is that community based creation of standards causes social change. This includes acceptable behavior, understandable rules of use, and rules for conflict resolution. In a two words the whole concept can be described as "competitive cooperation".
Competitive cooperation is the similar yet opposite the CEO of Visa's Chaordic (pronounced Kay-Or-Dic) systems. It similar in that it uses competition to produce a result. It is opposite in that it uses competition to result in a common goal. The difference between the two is that one collaborates to find a solution the other competes to win.
We are seeing more competitive cooperation from open source software, standards for all things internet, online rules of conduct emerging from elementary school children, k-12 and college educational material, social media sites, etc.
The trend is just beginning, only 5 percent of people use it on a daily basis. Like most disruptive scenarios it is starting with the younger generation and will work its way up in age.
The reason I point this out to you is simple. There are 6 billion of us and only about 50,000 on your side. So long and I hope you enjoy the soup.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's still amazing that any court thinks that just publishing links to something should be illegal,
So long and thank someone for all the fish soup.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So long and thank someone for all the fish soup. Re: Re: Re: It's still amazing that any court thinks that just publishing links to something should be illegal,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So long and thank someone for all the fish soup. Re: Re: Re: It's still amazing that any court thinks that just publishing links to something should be illegal,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So long and thank someone for all the fish soup. Re: Re: Re: It's still amazing that any court thinks that just publishing links to something should be illegal,Robots will make artists obsolete.
"Commander Data" from Star Trek would disagree.
He cannot laugh , or whistle. He lacks a soul.
So do you apparently.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: So long and thank someone for all the fish soup. Re: Re: Re: It's still amazing that any court thinks that just publishing links to something should be illegal,Robots will make artists obsolete.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: So long and thank someone for all the fish soup. Re: Re: Re: It's still amazing that any court thinks that just publishing links to something should be illegal,Robots will make artists obsolete.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: So long and thank someone for all the fish soup. Re: Re: Re: It's still amazing that any court thinks that just publishing links to something should be illegal,Robots will make artists obsolete.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They neither sought it out nor pointed it out.
And only an imbecile could believe hosting content and posting a link to it is the same thing. That's like saying talking about child molesters and molesting children is the same thing.
think of it another way, it is a simple criminal conspiracy: one site hosts the files, then another sites points to them
Except that there's no collusion whatsoever, which believe it or not is a necessary component of a conspiracy.
it is like a street runner telling you which door to knock to get crack. they are involved in the transaction.
I believe that's completely legal, and it is a completely different situation.
more and more it is clear that these groups work together to share illegally, and that is enough to merit court action.
Yes, the entire internet is illegal. /s
Your post was stupid and asinine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Actually, they are quite different and your claim otherwise is an outrage against the children who are the victims of such producers. Typical TAM.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
to
read
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
my
shorts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
it is like a street runner telling you which door to knock to get crack. they are involved in the transaction. I believe that's completely legal, and it is a completely different situation.
YOUR ANS : I believe that's completely legal, and it is a completely different situation.
MY ANS and the Law's ANS:
It is illegal. It is called "aiding and abetting" or "pimping" in street talk.
The more you Pirates post. the more you arguments close in on you , and crush your viewpoints based on your Pirate Logic legal falsehoods
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Actually, the way it is now it probably is. Little by little it is going to have to be turned into something more like cable TV, where individuals can "consume", but they can't "distribute". It was just a fluke that it was ever allowed to be created the way it is in the first place, and now the courts are having to go around fixing it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Does this mean that /all/ people do these things? No.
Is this behavior exclusive to the internet? No.
Why would we change the internet to a broadcast medium? It was /built/ on user created content? Because /some/ people watch movies and don't pay for them? Just like some people sneak into a movie theater to see that same film without paying for it.
We are living in a time of change, established ways of doing business are changing. Old business models that have been prevalent for the last century are changing because technology is making them obsolete.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
great, while we're at it we should file suits against IANA for giving them an IP, ISC for making bind so you could browse to the site by name, the OEM for selling the hardware, and every software engineer ever for writing the OS, browser, and media player. then when that's done you should go after their parents for "facilitating" the infringement.
/rant
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:Little by little it is going to have to be turned into something more like cable TV
Excellent Post sir !!! A +++
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:Little by little it is going to have to be turned into something more like cable TV
That's not how the internet works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
it is like a street runner telling you which door to knock to get crack. they are involved in the transaction. I believe that's completely legal, and it is a completely different situation.
" it is like a street runner telling you which door to knock to get crack. they are involved in the transaction."
YOU : I believe that's completely legal, and it is a completely different situation.
ME : WRONG it is not legal. It is aiding and abetting , and if it is for the sale of Crack ,, or pimping prostitution ,, you got to jail.
Again my point : Leave legal commentary to people trained in law !!
=============================
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: it is like a street runner telling you which door to knock to get crack. they are involved in the transaction. I believe that's completely legal, and it is a completely different situation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: it is like a street runner telling you which door to knock to get crack. they are involved in the transaction. I believe that's completely legal, and it is a completely different situation.
------
good time again to take a break ,, and watch a little George Harrison and Monty Python view on this matter,, after the whole My sweet Lord lawsuit stuff.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGbRHxM4X2g
George Harrison's -- "The Pirate Song"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: it is like a street runner telling you which door to knock to get crack. they are involved in the transaction. I believe that's completely legal, and it is a completely different situation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So, posting/writing about something NOT illegal is illegal according to the judge.
o make things more into perspective: It has been found out at this moment the judge in this case is also a business partner of Time Kuik, one of the Netherlands' most known ' pirate hunters' , who is advocating making downloading illegal as well...
this is no joke..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ruling
No, he didn't. Telling someone on the internet where a file is located is no different than if someone asked you where the street vendors sell the knock-offs in New York City. If you told him, "Times Square" and even provided directions how to get there, no one could prosecute you. But somehow the moment the same thing happens with the internet, all the rules go out the window.
There seems to be a peculiar phenomenon which has emerged in the last five years or so where everyone, from the government, to business, to the general public, seems to lose their minds over behavior on the internet which, when done offline in the real world, is perfectly acceptable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: in a digital world, actively seeking out illegal downloads and pointing to them has nearly the same net effect as hosting them. think of it another way, it is a simple criminal conspiracy:
ME : EXACTLY right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: in a digital world, actively seeking out illegal downloads and pointing to them has nearly the same net effect as hosting them. think of it another way, it is a simple criminal conspiracy:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: in a digital world, actively seeking out illegal downloads and pointing to them has nearly the same net effect as hosting them. think of it another way, it is a simple criminal conspiracy:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: in a digital world, actively seeking out illegal downloads and pointing to them has nearly the same net effect as hosting them. think of it another way, it is a simple criminal conspiracy:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who cares?
Besides I wish the best of luck to courts trying to enforce that thinking on, IM(Instant Messaging), tweets(or other social medium) that may or may not have links to material that has been legal and are not anymore, or try to make a gazillion people stop passing links to one another through mail, email, sms, barcodes, sound frequencies, light transmissions, light painting, incidental infringement like some one is filming his baby dance and captures a link on the screen that points to infringing material or the link was legal at some point but at a whim the owner changed his mind and now it is illegal.
I can see how they will suceed(in making themselves look like fools)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who cares?
reading your comments proves that you are likely both american and not yet the holder of any diploma.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Who cares?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Who cares?
Those things the judge said will only apply to usenet groups?
Ok, I'm dumb, and have no critical thinking capabilities, you are right, how could I not see it before, it will only be applied to that small subset of actions only if it involves usnet groups that specifically spots and help people find illegal content and they do that by posting links and commenting.
So if it is outside usenet newsgroups and it is done with no intent to "specifically" spot or help people find illegal content then it is permissable and the law will say nothing?
Yeah I'm dumb.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ok, I'm dumb, and have no critical thinking capabilities,Re: Re: Re: Who cares?
For most pro-pirate & anti-copyright posters here,
yes that is true.
I this techdirt , had a formal academic review syem for posts, that would be clear.
ME and the other AC , both of us clearly more educated in law,
One here understood "aiding and abetting" as a legal concept.
And it is FACT , that with crack houses and whorehouses , "aiders and abettors" are arrested and convicted often.
So like I said to Mike, folks ,,
Go to law school or shut up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ok, I'm dumb, and have no critical thinking capabilities,Re: Re: Re: Who cares?
Then how would you manage to get any posts posted?
"ME and the other AC , both of us clearly more educated in law,"
Yeah...clearly...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Or...
Or he'll simply don't give a f*ck about morons like you and continue his blog. I know, I'm gonna read it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ok, I'm dumb, and have no critical thinking capabilities,Re: Re: Re: Who cares?
I used to actually bother to read your posts, but now I see that your opinion is a waste of my time. So I'm now mentally filing you with with all the TAM/Weird Harold clones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Who cares?
Ans:Again , exactly right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stop emailing now.
Remember copyright owners have absolute control(or so they think) so they can change the status of materials on the fly, that means that any link today can be a violation tomorrow.
How not to infringe ever?
Do not patronise artists that use copyright, it is that simple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do not patronise artists that use copyright, it is that simple.
PLEASE DO THAT !!!
Stop illegally downloaded copy righted work.
Do not pay for it either , if you are offended by copyright.
PLEASE DO !!!!!!
However ,, the majority of the human race , lawyers & Judges too,, DO support Copyright laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do not patronise artists that use copyright, it is that simple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do not patronise artists that use copyright, it is that simple.
So that's why hundreds of millions of people infringe on copyright everyday? And the rest of the human race doesn't even care about copyright law or know anything about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And the rest of the human race doesn't even care about copyright law or know anything about it.
EXACTLY .. That why the Police carry guns and Handcuffs.
Lack of knowledge of the law is no excuse. That is Law everywhere.
But you never learned that is school ,, you freaking Pirate.
You where probably , out braking into people lockers,, or stealing lunch $$ from the lower grade kids
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And the rest of the human race doesn't even care about copyright law or know anything about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And the rest of the human race doesn't even care about copyright law or know anything about it.
So it is to force people to do what they are told?
Nice, people are cattle now.
About the old "lack of knowledge of the law is no excuse" people should treat carefully there, because law is in part appearances too, if they are seem as not being fair there are consequences to that. Besides the principal objective of the law is to harmonize society if that doesn't happen then the law is no more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How not to infringe ever.
I sound simple and it is simple anyone trying to use copyright should be regarded as the devil.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I sound simple and it is simple anyone trying to use copyright should be regarded as the devil.
I hope you go to Jail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I sound simple and it is simple anyone trying to use copyright should be regarded as the devil.
It will take 2 years to find me?
BTW I have hacked things since I was 12, I cracked a lot of games to play, pirated the radio stations, copied the TV without shame and know I rip CD/DVD/Bluray's and you only hope I go to jail?
Effe you, moronic bastard, come and get me if you can and have the balls.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I sound simple and it is simple anyone trying to use copyright should be regarded as the devil.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A Digital Age Koan
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They understand it well enough, they just don't care. The entertainment industry is big business, so they automatically get special consideration. The normal rules don't apply to them. Or haven't you learned that yet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The normal rules don't apply to them. Or haven't you learned that yet?
We a a society of laws and democracy. Piracy is illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The normal rules don't apply to them. Or haven't you learned that yet?
Can't wait for filesharing to be leagalized. That's going to be so funny!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can't wait for filesharing to be leagalized. That's going to be so funny!
Get back to me if i am wrong on that,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can't wait for filesharing to be leagalized. That's going to be so funny!
I am telling everyone to pirate and don't be ashamed of it, I don't care if I'm inducing, come and get me then and see if I care.
I'm ripping some DVD's right now that I'm going to give to my friends at work and they in turn will give me some more, after that is more ripping, who is going to stop us?
You? congress(LoL)?
The police?
You have music online? I'm not ripping that because probably is shit anyway and who would care? not me for sure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who cares?
Nothing and anyone who tell you otherwise is living in a dreamland.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
www.guardian.co.uk
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Biased judge
His boss? The lawyer on the plaintiff side!
http://twitpic.com/1tb50b
http://www.geenstijl.nl/mt/archieven/2010/06/rechter_in_zaak_ftd _vriendje_v.html
IMHO the judge should have refused to take this case because of this obvious conflict of interest. And a judge who takes such a case despite such an obvious conflict of interest - without even informing the defense - should never be allowed to work as a judge again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Truth is worse than the headline.
The truth is worse.
The Judge ruled that "facilitating" equals "publishing".
He now rules, that talking about links equals facilitating, thus talking is publishing now.
Facilitating is illegal, downloading is legal.
This case made ( talking about ) downloading illegal, without the parliaments concent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A lot of criminals there.
Should anybody talk about some crime, should they be held responsible for those crimes too?
It is this responsibility to say what and who is a criminal best served by a court? If so why do we have a congress?
Who is deciding who is criminal or not and why is responsibility being placed on people talking about but not acting on it?
More importantly why such reasoning is being applied when it has no impact on the outcome what so ever?
Is making impossible to enforce laws a priority now? Is ignoring reality better for policy?
I have many questions about those things, because I don't see it working and being just a waste of time and eroding civil rights, affecting free speech, possible criminalizing natural behaviour that will be applied selectively to curtail opposition and so on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Every male probably knows where the whorehouse is, should they be held responsible for prostitution?
If they are , cops & judges ,, YES !!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
makes sense, you tell someone where illegal acts take place, why shouldn't you be held just as responsible
Wow, that was sarcasm, right?
Calling the police because you know your neighbours aren't home yet there are suspicious noises makes me, the caller, a burglar as well? Or at least complicit in the crime?
If that's the case, I have to agree with the general opinion regarding your both your schooling and emotional maturity..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How is this different than NewzBin?
Same setup (just bout as close as you can get). Same misplaced blame. Yet NewzBin is somehow guilty, and FTD is not?
Secondary liability / inducement is just wrong all around. I wish you'd be consistent on that.
NewzBin post (however brief): http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100331/0152258801.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I mean if FTD are criminals then surely Google are freaking Monsters?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actually it's worse than what you are saying Mike
So by saying the filename you are infringing on copyright, according to this judge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The people from the ftd found out that the judge is a good friend with the advocate from eyeworks.
The judge and advocate are best friends and the are giving courses against illegal downloading and in there eyes piracy
kind regards from the netherlands
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
However it is only legal for own use. Not for commercial bussineses. It is not allowed to reproduce for others. The same as it is illigal to share with other. This also includes uploading.
So because of the legal part of downloading it cannot be illigal to refer to links where you can download.
Also it is very strange case it is allowed that a judge had got a relation to one of the parties. In this case a realtion with the instituut Brein that is against downlaoding. Also the judge is working with institutes that fight against piracy.
How can you talk about justice when the one that has to peak law is involved up to his elbows with one party!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ban Google!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For all those jumping in defense, what if there was exactly the same type of program or site, that posted links to child porn downloads? Would you think that should be allowed too? They would not host the child porn, they would only provide very easy access and download locations.
Dont get me wrong, Im a FTD user myself, and I love it, but I do understand how it would be illegal, should be illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's a clear freedom of speech issue.
and if this new ruling will be the base for a new law, there's a lot of liability issues for legal sites as well. they will have to prove without a doubt that the (second hand) stuff people sell through their sites is legal and it will slow down progress of these sites.
Constantly stretching the meaning of liability will not solve the issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Stop the source and not the cancer. Having a tea-party while discussing the latest addition to alt.img.childporn is not illegal. How can such a thing be illegal?
Just take down the news-server as it hosts illegal shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]