I guess the MPAA forgot.
There's no such thing as bad publicity.
The Motion Picture Ass. of America has shot itself in the foot by issuing a copyright takedown notice against a corner of Reddit – and promptly turned a virtually unused subredit into a popular forum. The discussion board, /r/FullLengthFilms, is a place for Redditors to post links to films available for streaming or download, …
Wouldn't you think that if there is somewhere on the internet posting a collection of links to pirated content, the MPAA would be better off leaving that part of the internet alone and instead going after the sites that are being linked to? In effect the people of Reddit are surely making the MPAA's job much easier for them?!
I remember my kid brother calling me one day, after a CN story about the MPAA, RIAA, and Napster.
He said: "You mean I can get music for free? Really?
If the story hadn't appeared, he would have been clueless to this day..
One day, these people will put somebody in charge with more than two active brain cells.
Yes the original was a masterpiece. It is, or at least was 2 years ago, possible to get the series on DVD from the BBC shop. Now it seems a bit dated but still an enjoyable series for those of us that liked it the first time around. No I didn't watch the movie version. In my experience most movie versions of good series are a steaming pile of crap in comparison
Reddit is ultimately a company with assets that doesn't want to end up getting dragged through court for providing a forum for linking to pirated material. If you started posting links to pirated content in the Reg comments section, you'd similarly expect to see it deleted.
BTW if you moderate the forums, you are responsible for content, if you don't you're not.
Within limits - "ich habe es nicht gewusst"(*) is not going to help you if someone posts hate speech, for instace, and if you don't moderate you'll get the forums taken over by pron and junk merchants..
(*) "I didn't know" - famous attempted excuse for WW II war crimes
No, that is not the case under US law. Please stop spreading false or poorly understood legal information. Nowhere in Section 230 of the CDA does it say that if you edit you are responsible for content. Normal editing which does not change the meaning does not expose you to responsibility, and moderating definitely does not expose you to responsibility. Only if you change the meaning while editing might you be responsible.
The EFF wrote:
> Do I lose Section 230 immunity if I edit the content?
> Courts have held that Section 230 prevents you from being held liable even if you
> exercise the usual prerogative of publishers to edit the material you publish. You
> may also delete entire posts. However, you may still be held responsible for
> information you provide in commentary or through editing. For example, if you edit
> the statement, "Fred is not a criminal" to remove the word "not," a court might find
> that you have sufficiently contributed to the content to take it as your own. Likewise,
> if you link to an article, but provide a defamatory comment with the link, you may
> not qualify for the immunity.
Wait till the MPAA find out it was the original version that has the infamous 'Plutonium Lunacy' scene not the 2010 cinematic abomination.
Of course what's really kinda wierd is to be watching that clip again after so many years with the big NATO conference taking place in the UK later this year.... be still my paranoia
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020