Instead, the court went along with evidence presented by rightsholders, including a report compiled by a representative from the Association for the Fight against Audiovisual Piracy (ALPA).

The report revealed that ALPA uploaded a copyright infringing file last year to test the takedown policy. While the uploaded content could indeed be removed, the representative was able to re-upload the same content later, without any countermeasures.

Fuck this shit.

The idea that a site is obligated to proactively scan user content is gross.

[–] Flatworm7591@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 3 months ago

Reminds me of the "Physician, heal thyself" quote, except "Website, police thyself" with the added bonus that a bunch of pro-copyright lobbyists wrote all the anti-piracy laws that you are now obliged to enforce on their behalf.

[–] browse@lemmy.specksick.com 1 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I think this does not mean it has to scan the file directly, but maybe keep all the hashes to files that were taken down and stop them from getting uploaded again. This would also be fairly unintrusive, but could add a few false positives.

[–] conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 months ago

That is not acceptable.

[–] Laser@feddit.org 2 points 3 months ago

This would also be fairly unintrusive, but could add a few false positives.

If this was the case, we'd have a whole bigger problem on our hands.

Even considering the birthday problem, the chance for such collisions is astronomically small. Especially if you combine it with the file size that you always have anyways.

In fact I'd guess that sites like these already do exactly that in order to avoid hosting duplicates (if not handled at the file system level).