| It's an unpopular opinion because it's childishly simplistic. You could say the same thing about the internet providers, where streaming media of copyrighted content consists of the majority of their traffic. The providers do not know what streams are valid or invalid, and we do not want them to have the ability or right to monitor all of our internet traffic to determine that. They know that many of their users are likely streaming or downloading media from sources that do not compensate the content creators. But they also know that if they start identifying that, then they'll start being liable. Kim Dotcom was in the same situation. He knew that people on his platform were likely using it for file storage of files they didn't own the distribution rights to or own a license to have a personal copy of. He was legally been unable to start going through those and removing access (unless reported through a DMCA-like-mechanism) because then he would be moderating his platform and that opens him up to liability if his moderation tactics are not 100% effective. Safe Harbor provisions are important and he was trying to keep them in place for his service. |
THAT isn't just innocent "we don't want to know", that's intentionally infringing. I have absolutely no love for the MAFIAA and their ilk, but let's not pretend Dotcom was some sort of martyr.
A fairly insightful article on the whole affair: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/us-unveils-the-ca...