Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
I don't mean to be impolite, but I think that a certain amount of paranoia is being exhibited here. This law is clearly NOT intended to be used to block access to sites some of whose contents merely happen not to be in the UK public domain. You know that; I know that; everybody knows that. So why try to pretend that it is? It's there for use to block access to so-called "pirate" sites. If we're going to discuss this, let's do so in a sensible manner.
|
What it's *intended* to block is not the issue. The question is what it'll be used to block--and what it *can* be used to block.
Can the Mitchell estate use it to try to take down sites that host
Gone With The Wind? Can they demand download info, in order to go after US residents who download it Gutenberg Australia? from Can France's government use it to go after Google, for hosting books that are copyrighted in France? Can Disney use it to shut down Warner Brothers' forums where pictures of Disney characters are sometimes show in macros?
Can it be used to shut down YouTube entirely?
By removing the requirement of conviction in a court of law, it becomes a tool for whoever has the best C&D-writing lawyers.