Re: Who decides if it's copyright-infringing?
Typically blocked content is not copyright infringing where the host server is situated or they would attack the source, only once the content appears in the copyright area is there any issue and then only for the local distributers.
However since rights to content are sold to local distributers so they can charge for our access then the ISP and the Governement are working for the distributers interests against ours, monopolies push our viewing cost up without any benefit to us or the content creators.
That the "infringing host" could be said to be just another distributer is said to be invalid on the premise that the distributer has been allowed to purchase the only right to distribute said content in your area, a legal supported monopoly. Netflix for example has most of it's content unavailible outside of the US as our local distributors have been given the only right to distribute here. The producers and artists still got paid by netflix but the blocking laws are not really for artists or producers benefit at all.
Now if the same content was sold direct to us without the local distributers then the producers and artists would still get paid but the leeches would not, hence we have laws to protect the leeches monopoly on what we are allowed to view.
Without the leeches then media access would be cheaper and the ISP and Government would not have to pay out our money to guarranty the leeches right to leech. Most people who use "infringing sites" would prefer to use a legitimate site, those that would not pay at all would not under any scheme.
So if the Government instead removed the distribution monopolies and all the laws created for their unfair protection then the whole "piracy" issue would disappear and we would all save money.
Lastly copyright infringement is never theft as the owner retains possession no matter how many people copy or view it.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
