Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >   If these companies would have their way, it would soon be impossible to
> > use a web browser for anything because you could have a lawsuit in your
> > hands just by going to some website.

> That's why we don't have laws quite *that* f'ed up.

  Well, if you don't count the fact that in some countries just putting a
link to copyrighted material is illegal. You don't have to *distribute* the
material, it's enough that you *link* to the material.

  That kind of law is really f'ed up in so many levels. For example:

- If it's illegal to post a link to copyrighted material, is it illegal to
post a link to a web page which has illegal material as an embeded video?
Is it illegal to post a link to a youtube video with copyrighted material?

- Is it illegal to post a link to a page which contains links to copyrighted
material (but doesn't distribute it itself)? How many indirection stpes are
necessary before posting a link becomes legal, and why?

- If you post a link to a webpage containing only legal material, and then
some time later illegal material appears on that page, have you committed
a crime retroactively? How do you *prove* that the page did not have the
illegal material when you posted the link?

- If instead of posting an URL to illegal material you describe the URL in
words, is it still illegal? What if you give search keywords to find the
page using google? Is it still illegal? Again, how much indirection has to
be done before doing it becomes legal, and why?

  If the answer is "it hasn't been tested in court", then the law is *really*
f'ed up. How can you obey a law which even the lawmakers can't figure out
precisely when it's applicable and when it isn't? That's completely arbitrary
and random. You could be committing a crime without knowing, because some law
is so imprecise and ambiguous. How can you expect people to obey a law which
doesn't actually define in exact terms when you break the law? That's just
crazy.

> > could even get jailed because they browsed the wrong blogs and they don't
> > have money to pay for the extortion.

> We aren't supposed to be sending people to jail for inability to pay civil 
> fines.  (I think I read a whole bunch of outrage about it happening to one 
> person, but it's certainly not normal.)

  What do they do there if someone can't pay fines or other payments, and
has no property to speak of?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message