Quote:
Originally Posted by Brutha  Of course it has. Wikileaks hosts a bunch of material that isn't from the US government and is therefore theoretically protected by copyright.
Wikileaks makes the argument that it's fair use to publish the material this way. |
Care to give an example of a document that has copyright that Wikileaks is hosting?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brutha In a world where an ISP can simple shut down the website when they suspect it of violating copyrights violations it might be easy to get Wikileaks blacklisted.
I think the technical process of hardening software to work decentrally is that difficult.
Making it decentral would be enough. You don't even need the annoymity to evade this law.
That's not really the situation Comcast is for example both an ISP and a party that doesn't want copyright violations to happen.
At the moment Comcast thinks it doesn't have the legal right to go around shutting websites down.
This bill is supposed to give comcast that right. That the point where due process gets removed. |
As far as I can tell this law doesn't apply to Wikileaks at all. I'm trying to picture the relation you are stating but I just don’t see it. This law is targeted at getting intermediaries involved with protecting copyright. If wikileaks is really publishing copyrighted material why are they not being sued out of existence? Say they published an early copy of the last Harry Potter book. I'm pretty sure the publish company would come after them and rightfully so.
BitTorrent software already works decentrally, so again I'm not really sure what you’re saying with this statement.
Last I'm pretty sure Comcast does have the legal right to shut down websites that it hosts. They can choose not to do business with anyone they want. They and other intermediaries are simply choosing not be involved and have been standing firm on that ground.