undefined | Better HN

0 pointsjunto13y ago0 comments

Google was a cheap shot, but to be honest, fair use is always debatable. I was more interested in the concept of secondary/proxy linking. What if the accused had linked via a bit.ly proxy for example? What if a search engine links to a bittorrent site, that then in turn linked to copyrighted content? E.g.

https://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=http%3A%2F%2Fthepirateba...

Just to play devil's advocate here (and out of general interest), but why should he follow DMCA? Isn't that a United States copyright law? Where's the jurisdiction here?

0 comments

jahewson13y ago

The DMCA gives you a get-out if you've committed a copyright infringement unknowingly via user-generated content. By serving that content you have already violated copyright under international law. But if you've been following the DMCA, then the US will (indeed they must) let you off.

chrischen13y ago

In the case of bit.ly: since bit.ly is used for legitimate purposes other than piracy, it can be protected by the DMCA if they comply with takedown requests. However a site which has no purpose other than to facilitate copyright infringement might be considered illegal.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsjunto13y ago0 comments

https://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=http%3A%2F%2Fthepirateba...

Just to play devil's advocate here (and out of general interest), but why should he follow DMCA? Isn't that a United States copyright law? Where's the jurisdiction here?

0 comments

jahewson13y ago

chrischen13y ago

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse