Posted by Rick Merrill on 12/07/06 01:26

PTravel wrote:
> "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.
>

No argument, but I thought Colin's point what that "the times they are
a-changing", and furthermore it has always been true that when the
re-use becomes so widespread that copyright enforcement becomes futile,
especially when the users all have shallow pockets!

I think the OP intended to engage more in futurism, not in current law.

When you get thousands of people copying your music, you go after the
top 50 as examples if not genuine remuneration. When you get tens of
millions copying your music - you've got to find other ways to count
your blessings than trying to sue.

[Back to original message]