That's worse than the current system. In the current system, the host can just take down the infringing content (until the uploader challenges the takedown), and pass along a warning to the uploader. The person complaining about the infringement never gets personal info about who the uploader is. In your scenario, the webhost would leave the content up but they would have to identify the uploader.
Re:What should I do about YouTube?
by AnthonyMouse on Sunday January 25, 2015 @03:48AM
(#8942440)
> In your scenario, the webhost would leave the content up but they would have to identify the uploader.
What part of 47 U.S.C. Sec. 230 do you read as a requirement to identify the uploader?
Obviously a plaintiff who wants to sue the uploader might be able to get a subpoena (assuming the webhost can identify the uploader), but how is that different from the DMCA?
It also isn't clear whether they would even have any liability without the safe harbor, because it was put into place early enough that we don't really know what happens without it. But you don't generally expect the Post Office to be liable for what people send in the mail.