Quote:
Originally Posted by zerospinboson
Neat assertion. Do back it up fully
|
Sony vs Universal Studios. It's a Supreme Court case that basically defined the standards for contributory copyright infringement. The court's opinion outlines "capable of commercially significant noninfringing uses" as the main test.
If you know of anywhere in US copyright law that states an absolute number which would make a tool illegal, please post it.
Quote:
|
In other words[B], why do you assume statistics are unbiased and unbiasable?
|
Why do you assume I ever said that?
Quote:
|
But by all means, defend the position that RS doesn't thrive on hosting illegally uploaded content.
|
Why should I defend a position that I never stated? The question had nothing to do with thriving on content. The statement I was responding to was that RS sold IP content.
Quote:
|
If you really feel you gain something from trying to convince me of the fact that because I can't know the total number of files, I'm not allowed to say anything at all
|
I never said you weren't allowed to say anything (I see a pattern here).
The point is that without knowing the total number of files, you have no idea of the relative amount of infringing vs non-infringing material. The absolute number of infringing material is irrelevant. According to the Supreme Court (again, this is all based on US law, which doesn't really apply so it's kind of moot), it would depend on whether there was significant noninfringing uses. This is assuming you are trying to accuse them of contributory infringement.
According to the DMCA (again, same note about the jurisdiction), qualifying for safe harbor requires that the site not be aware of the legal status of the material. They are not required to know it, in fact, it's better for them if they don't. They are required to honor takedown requests, which they claim to. I don't know if they do or not, do you?
Quote:
I have nothing against filesharing, but I do have something against RS.
...
Looking at intent, however, I can safely say I disapprove of their business practice even while I wholeheartedly support the right to distribute files between end users. And yes, I can happily say that without "knowing" the RS owners at all, without feeling the least presumptive.
|
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're basically saying that you support hosting/distributing of files on behalf of end users, but you that you disapprove of RS because "you don't like them" and/or you assume you know what their "intent" is?