|
|
Posted by Colin B on 12/19/06 01:40
"Bill Funk" <BigBill@there.com> wrote in message
news:2p4do2dbt4i3esi1efevquub24014c75ii@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 13:31:32 +1300, "Colin B" <Colin B@cb.org> wrote:
>
>>Because the copyright holders MUST be aware that large numbers of persons
>>are publishing all or part of their work on internet, then they need to
>>get
>>together to devise ways of stopping this illegal behavior. If the
>>copyright
>>holders don't do this, it sends a message to the illegal uploaders that
>>the
>>copyright laws are toothless, or that nobody really cares about it. So,
>>until the law is changed to make website owners jointly responsible along
>>with the uploaders for publishing "illegal" material, then the copyright
>>holders are going to lose out.
>
> IMO, that points to the need to reconsider the whole idea of
> "copyright".
> There's no way, at present, for web presences like Youtube to check
> each uploaded video for copyright infringement. The technology doesn't
> allow this at a cost that the current funding can afford.
> I'm not in any way saying that intellectual property shouldn't be
> protected. But at the same time, as technology makes it so easy to
> post a 320x120 (or whatever size these videos are) video of a football
> game, the task of preventing it becomes unmanagable.
> At what point, legally, does a business become a venue instead of a
> publisher? (eBay is, legally, a venue, and not legally responsible for
> auctions posted unlerss and until it is legally notified of an illegal
> auction. Is Youtube a publisher or a venue?)
> At what point does it stop being practical to chase down violations?
> How much of a country's resources is a country supposed to put into
> stopping the unstopable? Is the UN going to step in and force
> countries to adopt a universal copyright law? If so, who enforces it?
> Something to think about.
I agree that the current laws don't seem to be effective in stopping people
from posting material to internet, for which they don't have permission from
the copyright holders. Even if these infringing uploaders are sued, or if
Youtube is requested to remove the material, it can be readily reposted to
Youtube by thousands of willing copyright breakers.
So, perhaps the way ahead is for sites, such as Youtube, to pay copyright
fees and / or licensing fees, out of the advertising revenue they receive.
If video sharing sites show a willingness to share their profits with the
legitimate rights owners, then this may give these people the additional
revenue that they deserve as a result of the publication of their material
on such web sites. This principle is discussed in this article:
http://news.com.com/Google+shares+ad+wealth+with+videographers/2100-1024_3-6130881.html
Even if video sharing sites do pay fees to the copyright holders, I believe
they should still warn uploaders not to upload copyright infringing
material. Infringing uploaders should be aware that video sharing sites are
not their friends, see this article:
http://news.com.com/YouTubes+no+friend+to+copyright+violators/2100-1030_3-6128252.html
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|