In all fairness, creating third-party liability would effectively disconnect Peru from the Internet all together, since no one could offer a service.
While that probably wouldn't stop ALL piracy, it would probably cut it down big time. Of course, it would also leave Peru on the refuse pile of history. Which I'm guessing the US based companies arguing for this would care about.
1. PRQ has never been accused of doing anything illegal. The raid wasn't against them, it was against one of their customers.
2. For your comparison to hold up, the taxi-driver would have to deny someone travel based on someone else (not the police) claiming that someone the person knows MAY have robbed a bank.
It's not like PP "saw" PRQ do anything illegal, since as I said no one has accused them of doing anything illegal.
You do have a point. Personally I don't think they should be able to both eat the cake and have it too though.
Basically, if you choose customers in this way, then you are also legally responsible for what those customers do with your service. If you want immunity, "mere conduit", then you also have to do business with everyone except the ones specifically called out by a legal courtorder.
Of course, then we get to the whole filtering your commentsection issue. If the same logic applies to that, then you can't filter out spam without loosing your protection.
BUT! There is a middleground, where you are allowed some filtering to maintain your service, kind of like how ISPs are allowed to disconnect you if your computer starts spewing viruses.
"The foundational premise of Locke's theory is that all people have a natural right of property in their own bodies. Because people own their bodies, Locke reasoned that they also owned the labor of their bodies and, by extension, the fruits of that labor."
Wait, you are getting this NOW? Wow, over here in Sweden we have had that since... well, since the start.
All though I think I might have misunderstood something; are you telling me that you used to keep on paying a higher monthly fee after that initial contract? Or was it just the fact that they screwed you once you added up the actual cost?
I was of the impression that the whole "under penalty of perjury" only applied to the part where they attest that they are working for the copyright owner?
I don't know if it would really be "free". As I understand it, the theaters pay a certain percent of the ticketprice to the owner of the movie, and I think they want that cut even if the ticket were "free".
Re: Gosh, it's a "mashup" of running themes! With surprise twist!
As I understand it, the theaters pay most of the ticket-price to the movie distributer/owner. And I'm willing to bet big money that they don't care if you used MoviePass or not, they still want their cut.
Then again, it depends on who "pays" that ticket. Is MoviePass independent of the theater, and thus pays the ticketprice? In that case they can EASILY loose money on you.
Re: It's a business plan.. just like what a bank requires
Let me guess; you didn't bother to actually read what he wrote, did you?
'Cause if you had, you would have noticed that he had no problem with the rules about having to lay out the dangers and solutions. It was the ban on renderings and allowing multiples of the same reward that he didn't agree with.
On the post: Is Peru Going To Get Its Own SOPA?
It COULD work...
While that probably wouldn't stop ALL piracy, it would probably cut it down big time. Of course, it would also leave Peru on the refuse pile of history. Which I'm guessing the US based companies arguing for this would care about.
On the post: PayPal Freezes Funds Of Famed Swedish ISP Twice
Re:
On the post: PayPal Freezes Funds Of Famed Swedish ISP Twice
Re:
2. For your comparison to hold up, the taxi-driver would have to deny someone travel based on someone else (not the police) claiming that someone the person knows MAY have robbed a bank.
It's not like PP "saw" PRQ do anything illegal, since as I said no one has accused them of doing anything illegal.
On the post: PayPal Freezes Funds Of Famed Swedish ISP Twice
Re: Re: Legality... Double Standards.
Basically, if you choose customers in this way, then you are also legally responsible for what those customers do with your service. If you want immunity, "mere conduit", then you also have to do business with everyone except the ones specifically called out by a legal courtorder.
Of course, then we get to the whole filtering your commentsection issue. If the same logic applies to that, then you can't filter out spam without loosing your protection.
BUT! There is a middleground, where you are allowed some filtering to maintain your service, kind of like how ISPs are allowed to disconnect you if your computer starts spewing viruses.
On the post: PayPal Freezes Funds Of Famed Swedish ISP Twice
Re: Re: Re: Re: Legality... Double Standards.
I think the point is that, at least from a common sense perspective, they are already obliged by law to not keep someone else's money like that.
On the post: Police Chief Deploys Officers With Assault Rifles To Stop & ID Everyone; Says Local Crime Stats Give Him Probable Cause
Re:
On the post: RIAA Lawyers Trying To Rewrite History Of Copyright Clause Through Shoddy Scholarship And Selective Quotation
Wait a minute...
Did the RIAA just argue for communism?
On the post: NYTimes Columnist Proves That Among Billions Of Tweets Some People Say Stuff You Don't Care About
Re:
On the post: 10 Years Later, T-Mobile Finally Kills Phone Subsidies: And It Doesn't Mean You'll Pay More
Meanwhile in the old world...
All though I think I might have misunderstood something; are you telling me that you used to keep on paying a higher monthly fee after that initial contract? Or was it just the fact that they screwed you once you added up the actual cost?
On the post: The SHOCKING Photos That Violated Facebook's Policies!
Re: My take...
On the post: LeakID And The DMCA Takedown Notice Farce
If only...
On the post: LeakID And The DMCA Takedown Notice Farce
Re: Re: The Joke
On the post: MoviePass Offers 'Unlimited' Movie Tickets For $29.99 A Month -- But Can It Ever Hope To Turn A Profit?
Re: Re:
On the post: MoviePass Offers 'Unlimited' Movie Tickets For $29.99 A Month -- But Can It Ever Hope To Turn A Profit?
Re: Gosh, it's a "mashup" of running themes! With surprise twist!
Then again, it depends on who "pays" that ticket. Is MoviePass independent of the theater, and thus pays the ticketprice? In that case they can EASILY loose money on you.
On the post: Amazon Wipes Customer's Account, Locks All Ebooks, Says 'Find A New Retailer' When She Asks Why
Re: Re: Mmmmmmmmmm
On the post: US Military Classifies Wikileaks As 'Enemy Of The United States'
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually, it can be from any source, you will just look like a tool if you cite Fox News for instance. ;-)
On the post: Kickstarter Introduces New Rules To Try To Limit Disappointment
Re: It's a business plan.. just like what a bank requires
'Cause if you had, you would have noticed that he had no problem with the rules about having to lay out the dangers and solutions. It was the ban on renderings and allowing multiples of the same reward that he didn't agree with.
On the post: University Requires Students To Pay $180 For 'Art History' Text That Has No Photos Due To Copyright Problems
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: University Of California Won't Give Up: Sues Facebook Over Already Rejected Patents
Re: Re: Re: Penalty for EOLAs?
On the post: Malaysian Government Holding Service Providers Liable For The Actions Of Their Users
Re:
Next >>