[toyg]

Isn't the whole point of DMCA Safe-Haven rules, that providers are not responsible for the content they transmit...? As long as they respond to law enforcement to the best of their ability, of course (i.e. taking down after being notified). I agree that encryption is not exempting them from enacting takedowns, and that intention matters (as discussed in the MEGA case), but that should be about it.

If I build a filesharing site with clearly-good intentions, my employees don't promote piracy, and the content is encrypted, as long as I take shit down when authorities tell me it's Bad I should be in the clear, surely...?

[kristopolous]

That's probably fine. AWS S3 or say Google Cloud or Dropbox doesn't have these issues.

There's plenty of long lived providers.

That's different from if you had a service called, say, pirate-share with a search function that has options like "artist" and "director". These difference matter.

As far as I know, the courts have looked at anonymous file sharing sites as closer to the second group than the first.

I remember when the internet was basically only anonymous and I think it was a better time and that's kinda why I like tor. The problem is most people seem to only go there for crime as opposed to some weird ideological commitment to how online engagement should exist.

It'd be nice if there could be a more healthy balance between anonymity and crime that's more encouraging for people to be anonymous but somehow less supportive of criminal activity.

Basically I think "influencer culture" and branding oneself has destroyed things

[AnthonyMouse]

> That's different from if you had a service called, say, pirate-share with a search function that has options like "artist" and "director". These difference matter.

Perversely, though.

Grokster and BitTorrent are largely used for the same things and they both have infringing and non-infringing uses. Grokster lost because they promoted the infringing uses. But why do we actually care about this?

It's not as if copyright infringement never existed before Grokster and nobody has been able to figure out how to use BitTorrent for it because Bram Cohen never mentioned it.

So all the rule does is impose censorship. Because otherwise the creators of these technologies would be outspoken proponents of copyright reform. But then their lawyers tell them to STFU, because if they say that existing copyright terms are morally unjustifiable and the RIAA is a pack of vultures who deserve to go bankrupt and things to that effect, plaintiffs will argue that they're promoting infringement and sue them for their political opinions. Especially if they fail to be perfectly articulate and precise while expressing that sentiment.

Is it not a de facto prohibition on developers and businesses expressing public support for the Pirate Party?