View Single Post
Old 02-26-2013, 08:48 AM   #15
Jim Chapman
Addict
Jim Chapman ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Jim Chapman ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Jim Chapman ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Jim Chapman ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Jim Chapman ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Jim Chapman ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Jim Chapman ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Jim Chapman ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Jim Chapman ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Jim Chapman ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Jim Chapman ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 309
Karma: 2025434
Join Date: Oct 2009
Device: Lumia 950 Phone
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeD View Post
If the site the OP refers to, also complies with takedowns and has a mixture of infringing and legal content, it may not be cut and dry. Although I've not actually looked at the site in question so how easily it fits the piracy label, I don't know.
That indeed is the key question. If flibusta is purely a source of pirated material, and takes no measures to remove it when requested, then it's a cut-and-dried case - they're a piracy site and certainly not deserving of my support. And removing the link is not only the legally safe thing for me to do, but also the morally right one.

But I rather suspect it's a grey area - it feels like the 'take-down' threat is just a shot being fired in a turf war between flibusta and LitRes, with me being caught in the cross-fire. And that was really the substance of the OP: the DMCA take-down procedure is a blunt instrument, and operates against the interests of justice since it means that the merits of flibusta and LitRes' respective cases will never get tested in a court.
Jim Chapman is offline   Reply With Quote