|
|
Posted by PTravel on 12/05/06 19:00
"Skip" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
news:ro3dh.3$%T6.0@newsfe15.phx...
> "Colin B" <Colin B@cb.org> wrote in message
> news:4573e69e$1@clear.net.nz...
>> Now that it's easy to put your digital photographs and movies on to a
>> video sharing site, such as "youtube", the question of whether copyright
>> infringements really harm the copyright holders is now a hot topic. See,
>> for example, the article titled:
>>
>> Youtube copyright infringements are not all bad for the copyright
>> holders?
>>
>> http://fredhere.blogspot.com/
>>
>> What do you think of the arguments in this blog? Should copyright holders
>> take a broad view and tolerate copyright infringements on youtube as is
>> suggested in this blog?
>>
>> See also the youtube site: http://www.youtube.com/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Only if proper attribution is given by the person who posts the
> copyrighted material. And, then, copyright infringement is arguable, at
> that point.
Sorry, but that's absolutely, completely wrong. Attribution is irrelevant
to infringement, except that if you acknowledge the copyright owner when you
infringe, you've rendered yourself liable for intentional infringement.
> Too often, material is put up without attribution, and there's no way for
> the viewer to hunt down and purchase the original, if so inclined.
Doesn't matter. There is absolutely no obligation on the part of a
copyright owner to make his work of authorship available for others' use or
purchase. "I didn't know who owned it" is not a defense to copyright
infringement.
>
> --
> Skip Middleton
> www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
> www.pbase.com/skipm
>
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|