|
|
Posted by PTravel on 12/07/06 02:25
"Colin B" <Colin B@cb.org> wrote in message news:457773be$1@clear.net.nz...
>
> "PTravel" <ptravel@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
> news:4tp7v3F14muvtU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> "Bob Ford" <imagesinmotion@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:a6men2h73m33baltbd9v28eq3drql75fe7@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> Yes, I agree that Youtube has created a wonderful position for
>>> themselves. They don't police the uploads and take no responsibility
>>> for anything posted.
>>> Bob Ford
>>> Images In Motion
>>> www.imagesinmotion.com
>>
>> Just to be clear, Youtube hasn't created the position, but is exploiting
>> a position that was created by lobbyists who wrote bad law that was
>> enacted by Congresspeople who were concerned about protecting the
>> interests of those putting money in their pockets. I can't blame Youtube
>> for implementing a business model that is wholly and completely legal.
>
> You say that lobbyists wrote bad law. As an expert in this field, how
> would you like to see the law changed?
My personal opinion:
First, the DMCA was intended as an end-run around Fair Use doctrine, which
is totally eviscerated by the provisions which preclude by-passing technical
copy protection mechanisms. I've been involved in litigation with a very
major content producer (perhaps the most major content producer) in which
they argued that bypassing copy protection EVEN TO ACCESS CONTENT THAT YOU
OWN AND HAVE A FULL RIGHT TO USE PURSUANT TO LICENSE constitutes a DMCA
violation. I'd get rid of that entirely -- it's completely unnecessary,
allows protection of expression that, otherwise, would be unprotectable as a
matter of law, and is in direct conflict with the First Amendment.
I'm not sure, however, that I'd change the liability exemption for ISPs. No
one here would argue that libraries should not be subject to infringement
liability for distributing a book that might subsequently turn out to be
infringing of copyright. Websites like Youtube perform a similar function.
If the onus for infringement policing fell on Youtube, it would go out of
business -- it is very, very difficult (and expensive) to verify the
copyright province of a particular piece of expression. Yes, for some
expression it is obvious -- pirated outtakes from the as-yet-unreleased
Harry Potter movie would probably be something that should alert any
reasonable person. However, if I upload my travel videos, how would Youtube
know whether I own the copyright, or whether they were illegally copied from
another source? I think libraries, and their on-line equivalents, are Good
Things and, not surprisingly, there are statutory exemptions for libraries
with respect to all kinds of activities that might otherwise be infringing
of intellectual property rights.
> Do you think that the website owners should be totally responsible for the
> content of the video that is uploaded to their sites and refuse to publish
> any uploaded videos that they consider may infringe copyright?
No, for the reasons above. One of my hobbies is writing musical theater. I
once took the score of one of my shows to Kinkos to have a bound copy made
so that I could send it in as a deposit copy for the copyright registration.
Kinkos refused to make the copy because my music had a copyright notice on
it and looked like it was professionally printed (I used amunesis
software -- kind of like a musical word processor -- and produces
professional output). I showed them my drivers license to prove that I was
the person identified as the copyright owner. They insisted that I show
them a copyright registration first.
This is the kind of silliness that results when liability is imposed on a
mass reproduction/distribution media producer. I wouldn't like to see the
same thing happen on-line.
>
>
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|