|
|
Posted by Colin B on 12/09/06 06:21
"Gene E. Bloch" <spamfree@nobody.invalid> wrote in message
news:mn.43497d6ca4d3dd9e.1980@nobody.invalid...
> On 12/07/2006, Colin B posted this:
>> Thanks PTravel for a very interesting reply. I think that the video
>> website owners should have SOME responsibilities to see that the
>> copyright holders get a fair go (that is, in addition to just removing
>> offending material when complaints are received from the legitimate
>> owners). We have seen that, with Youtube, literally thousands of video
>> clips have been uploaded that would not have been approved if the website
>> owner had been required to do some elementary checks.
>>
>> I think the law should require website owners to review all submissions
>> and have a responsibility to remove / not publish uploaders' videos when
>> it is obvious that copyright infringements have been made.
>>
>> If the website owners asked uploaders to complete a short questionnaire
>> before uploading their material, this would give the site owners the
>> opportunity to remove videos that obviously infringed copyright. For
>> example, the questions could be along these lines:
>>
>> 1. Have you read the material on this website which explains the
>> circumstances in which copyright approval should be obtained?
>>
>> 2. Are you the copyright holder of the material you wish to upload? If
>> so, give your correct full name and address.
>>
>> 3. If you are not the copyright holder, give the name and address of the
>> copyright holder and the date copyright approval was obtained.
>>
>> 4. Are you aware that severe penalties exist for uploading material that
>> infringes copyright and that you can be held personally liable if the
>> information you provide above is false? If in doubt, we suggest that you
>> should consult your lawyer before uploading material to this site.
>>
>> Now if an uploader declared that he was the copyright holder, and he then
>> uploaded a track from a commercial DVD or TV show, then it wouldn't be
>> that difficult for the website owner to tell whether or not this
>> submission obviously infringed copyright or not. If the website owner
>> could show that reasonable steps were taken to eliminate material that
>> obviously infringed the owners' rights, then this would be sufficient
>> from a legal viewpoint.
>>
>> I think that these 4 simple questions would reduce the number of
>> "illegal" uploads significantly and that most people would think twice
>> before submitting a false name and address for the copyright holder. In
>> addition, to help uploaders to understand when copyright approval should
>> be obtained, the copyright notes on the site should be fairly
>> comprehensive.
>>
>> I guess the above will never happen, but it would protect copyright
>> holders a little better than at present, what do you think?
>
> I see a problem with this questionnaire approach or any approach which
> requires the site to verify the copyright status of a submission (this
> problem was already alluded to somewhere in this thread, I think. Was it
> PTravel?).
>
> Any copyrighted submission that gets by the vetting then becomes an excuse
> to sue the provider.
>
> OK, most of those will be due to fraud by the submitter - but if the
> content owners wanted to start a flood of lawsuits, the provider would go
> broke on the cost of proving that fraud, not to mention on the small
> fraction of lawsuits that the content owners do win.
>
> Mainly, I think we should just hire PTravel to represent "us" (we the
> people) in Washington, to get the gov't to implement the ideas he proposed
> above.
Why would content owners only win a small fraction of lawsuits, they must be
fairly sure of their ground before suing?
At present, it is FAR too easy for an uploader to put videos on to Youtube
that obviously infringe copyright. I don't think this point is disputed by
anyone, so why aren't we trying to do something about this situation? At
least the questionnaire approach would make people more aware of the
seriousness of uploading copyrighted material without the permission of the
rights owner. In many instances, the uploaders would also have to make
fraudulent statements if they did in fact submit material that obviously
infringed copyright.
You say that any copyrighted submission that gets by the vetting then
becomes an excuse to sue the provider. I think the law should be changed so
that the website owners DO share some responsibility (together with the
uploaders) for publishing huge numbers of video clips that obviously
infringe copyright. Most web site owners have to take some responsibility
for the contents of their web sites, so I am not sure why video sharing web
sites should be any different. After all, these site owners are making a lot
of money from their sites!
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|