Posted by jeremy on 12/05/06 19:29

"PTravel" <ptravel@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
news:4tlofbF140di1U1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "Colin B" <Colin B@cb.org> wrote in message
> news:45753623$1@clear.net.nz...
>>
>> "PTravel" <ptravel@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
>> news:_EXch.10189$yf7.3856@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...
>>>
>>> "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/
>>>
>>> Copyright is an exclusive right, meaning the reserved rights are owned,
>>> entirely, by the copyright owner. It doesn't matter whether
>>> infringements are "not all bad" or not -- copyright is, by definition, a
>>> right to exclude. Your argument is pointless as it would mean, among
>>> other things, amending the Constitution and ignoring several hundred
>>> years of intellectual property jurisprudence.
>>
>> Nevertheless, in practice, it seems that copyright holders are taking a
>> broad view because there are a HUGE number of what must surely be illegal
>> copies of video clips from DVDs, TV shows etc. on youtube. Youtube seems
>> to place the responsibility on the people uploading the videos to
>> truthfully declare that permission has been obtained from the legal
>> copyright holders. Although the copyright holders must know that their
>> legal rights are constantly being infringed on this site, a lot of them
>> seem to choose to do nothing about it. This may indicate that they are
>> not really concerned about low quality video extracts from their work
>> appearing on youtube because of the advertising value of these clips to
>> the millions of people who visit this site. Why else could such huge
>> numbers of "illegal" video clips not be deleted from youtube? Unless of
>> course, people genuinely have received permission from the copyright
>> holders to upload limited extracts from their work on to youtube.
>
> Federal law exempts websites like Youtube from liability for infringing
> material uploaded by their users without their knowledge. Once notified
> of infringement Youtube has an obligation to delete the infringing
> material or face liability. What would you have the content owners do?
> Sue every single person who uploads infringing material, one at a time?
> The content owners notify Youtube, per statute, and the infringement is
> removed.
>
> I would suspect that a considerable number of infringements are undetected
> by the content owners. It is not their responsibility to monitor
> Youtube's daily uploads. That does not mean, either logically or legally,
> that content owners have consented to the infringement.
>
>
>>
>
>

Completely agree. It would be impossible for YouTube to be responsible for
copyright issues.

[Back to original message]