Posted by Colin B on 12/05/06 21:33

"PTravel" <ptravel@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
news:4tltu5F14ems0U1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "Skip" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:ro3dh.3$%T6.0@newsfe15.phx...
>> "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/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Only if proper attribution is given by the person who posts the
>> copyrighted material. And, then, copyright infringement is arguable, at
>> that point.
>
> Sorry, but that's absolutely, completely wrong. Attribution is irrelevant
> to infringement, except that if you acknowledge the copyright owner when
> you infringe, you've rendered yourself liable for intentional
> infringement.
>
>> Too often, material is put up without attribution, and there's no way for
>> the viewer to hunt down and purchase the original, if so inclined.
>
> Doesn't matter. There is absolutely no obligation on the part of a
> copyright owner to make his work of authorship available for others' use
> or purchase. "I didn't know who owned it" is not a defense to copyright
> infringement.


What we are seeing from the contributors to this thread is that, many people
are not well informed on copyright issues and are therefore likely to upload
material to the youtube site that does not have the required copyright
clearance. So doesn't this show that the onus should be on the WEBSITE OWNER
to have all the material uploaded to the site first cleared for copyright
issues BEFORE it is published? If visitors to the youtube site see literally
thousands of items taken from DVDs and TV shows, then they obviously think
it's OK to upload similar material, because the existing material must
surely have the blessing of youtube's owners, otherwise it would have been
taken down long ago.

There is ample evidence to youtube's owners that it is simply not safe to
rely on the judgment of the uploaders over copyright issues because they are
simply not well enough informed. Even experts disagree a lot over copyright
issues, so how can an uploader to youtube be expected to do the right thing?
So perhaps the only answer for everybody is to wait for the copyright
holders to complain, and then, and only then, take the offending material
down?

But could a person who illegally uploaded to youtube a few tracks from a DVD
be sued? Wouldn't their defence be that youtube should have taken the clips
down if they thought they infringed copyright?

[Back to original message]