|
|
Posted by Frank ess on 12/09/06 06:41
Colin B wrote:
> "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!
I believe any video sharing Web site owners who decided to take
responsibility for content would be quickly dissuaded by owners of
REALLY BIG Web sites who could see the danger in letting the camel's
nose into the tent. No way AOL, Gooooogle, others of that heft who
already have a serious investment in assigning "blame" for
questionable content to submitters, will let that happen. Legislators
understand. Ask yours.
--
Frank ess.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|