evanhr

4 hours in, and nobody went for "if they have trouble with this, wait until they try cache invalidation…"?

Very disappointed. [https://martinfowler.com/bliki/TwoHardThings.html]

see Rumsfeld v. FAIR: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumsfeld_v._Forum_for_Academic_....

Those government dollars most certainly can be conditioned on associating with certain people (military recruiters, in that case).

Absolutely agree that it's entirely reasonable to comply with the requirements of 512(c) to get the safe harbor, but to pick a couple of nits:

1. Copying a news article is likely to be infringing, but it might not be; it's always worth considering whether it's a fair use, especially for very factual material. 2. More importantly, it's not that HN would be liable "by default". Without the safe harbor, they would be open to claims of secondary liability, but the copyright holder would still have to prove the elements of contributory, vicarious, or "inducement" infringement.

Again, still worth it to be able to avoid lawsuits or at least dispose of them at an early stage, but the risk isn't automatic, full liability for the hosting site.