It's not about 'liability'...it's actually about a specific zero-tolerance for warez-use or its promotion.
But this is the very distinction you are making. The reason you are not liable is
because of your policy and don't allow your site to be used that way. This is the only difference - from a legal perspective - between this forum and a forum that lists warez downloads. This is the point I'm making;
any forum or website can be used for the purposes of listing illegal downloads.
Zero-tolerance is easy enough for some sites, but virtually impossible on others. These forums are designed to service your commercial products, which means the quantity and scope of any links are fairly narrow and this makes a bad link stand out fairly easliy. You also have the luxury of maintaining a relatively large group of paid site staff. Compare that to a broad community portal which has minimal revenue streams, few to no paid site staff, and hundreds of times the traffic. The idea that you could vet every single external link posted is ludicrous.
I guess I could approach this from a different angle. What would you find the distinguishing factor between a community portal which is used to post links to articles and (legit) downloads, and a "warez" site? I'm talking about the real world here, so it is
presumed that some people will attempt to post "bad" links on "good" sites, and even the sites with the best intentions have sharply limited resources to deal with the issue. Remember, this is a legal question, so think like a lawyer. The difference must be both objective and easily demonstrated in court.
This is actually a very difficult question that has been hounding courts around the world. How much effort does a site need to make in order to avoid liability for its user's actions? The "aiding and abetting" thing comes from the Napster precedent, where the judge agreed that there was a certain point at which the service provider was complacent, but that has left a room full of ambiguity over what constitutes such complacency, so this is actually a very active field of legal discussion.
I totally agree with you on this one Darvin3, with one exception. That line should read "I disagree; the internet's sole purpose is to facilitate the transfer of LEGAL information ("sharing", if you will)."
The physical internet has no real method of distinguishing between legal and illegal packets, so I'd actually disagree with you here. What the internet
should be used for and what it is
designed to do are two different things. The internet was designed to allow an unfettered transfer of information, and controlling the kinds of interactions wasn't a major consideration. The considering of whether the information being shared is legal or not is beyond the scope of the internet's purpose.
I think it's best if left that way, since opening that can of worms would have tremendous privacy, censorship, and sovereignty issues for the internet. But anyways, my original point was that the mere fact that a service
may be used to break the law is insufficient to make the service provider culpable for their client's actions.
You are an idiot. Copyright laws promote knowledge and progress by insuring writers can profit from their work. The ability to make a living at it is what gives the writer the ability to continue writing.
This is actually only half of the story. Copyright laws
balance the rights of the creator with the rights of the consumer to maximize creativity and knowledge. Too few rights for the creators and they have no monetary incentive, too many rights and the consumer's ability to use those creations are impacted.
What Willy is pointing out is that in the US, and many other countries, the balance has shifted so far in the favour of creator's rights that it is actually hampering creativity and innovation.