Quite a crazy article, I can't say I understand it all but I think I get the jist. So even though you have placed yourself not as a publisher you may still be potentially liable and the ISPs may be forced to shut you down if multiple copy right violations complaint are made correct.?
Yup, and it's a global treaty that the US is going for, and treaties tend to over-rule local law providing it's not in conflict with local constitutions (hence things like WIPO).
Could a possible solution be to have the general current site under https (and only viewable when logged in, and still with adverts as they are now) but all archives (and all post sinstantly become this stripped down archives) without any photo or video content under http which are trawled by google with adverts. For example Bikeforums.net has this come up on old pages. No photos no linked photos no video e.t.c.
Bikeforums do that for SEO purposes because their site is shite. I don't do it, but also for SEO purposes because Google favours sites that don't duplicate content (show it on 2 or more different URLs).
I do like the idea of SSL only, but what you're suggesting wouldn't protect me, our ISP or people on here from having pasted an article off of the internet onto here.
I could deny all bots (inc' Google), and go full SSL, that's kinda like an "open and visible darknet". But then, if people now couldn't really find the forum, why not just go invite only?
There might well be other ways to approach this... what about being an iceberg? 20% visible would be the Bikes & Bits forum, the Classifieds and the Mechanics... then everything else could be hidden unless you were registered and broke free of the nursery.
Walled gardens aren't the only option.
I'm motivated in this by selfishness (protecting my ass), love (protecting the community) and politics (I'm pretty against what is proposed). So ideas that balanced all three quite well would be worth thinking about.
Not that I proposed any action, just that when I read things like that article I do wonder about my role and what I could be doing.
Yup, and it's a global treaty that the US is going for, and treaties tend to over-rule local law providing it's not in conflict with local constitutions (hence things like WIPO).
Bikeforums do that for SEO purposes because their site is shite. I don't do it, but also for SEO purposes because Google favours sites that don't duplicate content (show it on 2 or more different URLs).
I do like the idea of SSL only, but what you're suggesting wouldn't protect me, our ISP or people on here from having pasted an article off of the internet onto here.
I could deny all bots (inc' Google), and go full SSL, that's kinda like an "open and visible darknet". But then, if people now couldn't really find the forum, why not just go invite only?
There might well be other ways to approach this... what about being an iceberg? 20% visible would be the Bikes & Bits forum, the Classifieds and the Mechanics... then everything else could be hidden unless you were registered and broke free of the nursery.
Walled gardens aren't the only option.
I'm motivated in this by selfishness (protecting my ass), love (protecting the community) and politics (I'm pretty against what is proposed). So ideas that balanced all three quite well would be worth thinking about.
Not that I proposed any action, just that when I read things like that article I do wonder about my role and what I could be doing.