Re: Or to put it another way
TheVogon said: "... as soon as you make [liable] the companies that are basically just pipes to content, then loads of unrelated stuff is going to get censored..."
But these companies are not 'basically just pipes to content'
(1) They stick adverts on the content before they pipe it to us, and they make lots and lots of money out of doing so.
(2) They snoop meticulously on who is at the end of their pipes and they monitor what we are looking-at/listening-to so they can monetise the sh*t out of that information.
Basically, these companies make a lot of money off the back of other people's content, and if they didn't have access to content that people wanted to see/hear then they wouldn't have a business.
Broadcasters, print publishers, people who make physical stuff – they can all be held liable if they make money from other people's work without properly compensating them.
But this seemingly straightforward fairness/anti-parasite rule about profiting from other people's work does not currently apply to the internet publishers.
That is an in-plain-sight contradiction.
That is why this isn't going to go away.