Posted by J. Clarke on 12/05/06 23:00

On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 10:33:52 +1300, Colin B wrote:

> "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?

Where it _should_ be and where it _is_ are two different things.

> 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?

No. Youtube is not legally the publisher, the person uploading it is and
they hold liability.

[Back to original message]