Posted by Colin B on 12/07/06 22:48

"PTravel" <ptravel@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
news:4tpcd3F157363U1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "Colin B" <Colin B@cb.org> wrote in message
> news:457773be$1@clear.net.nz...
>>
>> "PTravel" <ptravel@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
>> news:4tp7v3F14muvtU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>> "Bob Ford" <imagesinmotion@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>>> news:a6men2h73m33baltbd9v28eq3drql75fe7@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I agree that Youtube has created a wonderful position for
>>>> themselves. They don't police the uploads and take no responsibility
>>>> for anything posted.
>>>> Bob Ford
>>>> Images In Motion
>>>> www.imagesinmotion.com
>>>
>>> Just to be clear, Youtube hasn't created the position, but is exploiting
>>> a position that was created by lobbyists who wrote bad law that was
>>> enacted by Congresspeople who were concerned about protecting the
>>> interests of those putting money in their pockets. I can't blame
>>> Youtube for implementing a business model that is wholly and completely
>>> legal.
>>
>> You say that lobbyists wrote bad law. As an expert in this field, how
>> would you like to see the law changed?
>
> My personal opinion:
>
> First, the DMCA was intended as an end-run around Fair Use doctrine, which
> is totally eviscerated by the provisions which preclude by-passing
> technical copy protection mechanisms. I've been involved in litigation
> with a very major content producer (perhaps the most major content
> producer) in which they argued that bypassing copy protection EVEN TO
> ACCESS CONTENT THAT YOU OWN AND HAVE A FULL RIGHT TO USE PURSUANT TO
> LICENSE constitutes a DMCA violation. I'd get rid of that entirely --
> it's completely unnecessary, allows protection of expression that,
> otherwise, would be unprotectable as a matter of law, and is in direct
> conflict with the First Amendment.
>
> I'm not sure, however, that I'd change the liability exemption for ISPs.
> No one here would argue that libraries should not be subject to
> infringement liability for distributing a book that might subsequently
> turn out to be infringing of copyright. Websites like Youtube perform a
> similar function. If the onus for infringement policing fell on Youtube,
> it would go out of business -- it is very, very difficult (and expensive)
> to verify the copyright province of a particular piece of expression.
> Yes, for some expression it is obvious -- pirated outtakes from the
> as-yet-unreleased Harry Potter movie would probably be something that
> should alert any reasonable person. However, if I upload my travel
> videos, how would Youtube know whether I own the copyright, or whether
> they were illegally copied from another source? I think libraries, and
> their on-line equivalents, are Good Things and, not surprisingly, there
> are statutory exemptions for libraries with respect to all kinds of
> activities that might otherwise be infringing of intellectual property
> rights.
>
>> Do you think that the website owners should be totally responsible for
>> the content of the video that is uploaded to their sites and refuse to
>> publish any uploaded videos that they consider may infringe copyright?
>
> No, for the reasons above. One of my hobbies is writing musical theater.
> I once took the score of one of my shows to Kinkos to have a bound copy
> made so that I could send it in as a deposit copy for the copyright
> registration. Kinkos refused to make the copy because my music had a
> copyright notice on it and looked like it was professionally printed (I
> used amunesis software -- kind of like a musical word processor -- and
> produces professional output). I showed them my drivers license to prove
> that I was the person identified as the copyright owner. They insisted
> that I show them a copyright registration first.
>
> This is the kind of silliness that results when liability is imposed on a
> mass reproduction/distribution media producer. I wouldn't like to see the
> same thing happen on-line.

Thanks PTravel for a very interesting reply. I think that the video website
owners should have SOME responsibilities to see that the copyright holders
get a fair go (that is, in addition to just removing offending material when
complaints are received from the legitimate owners). We have seen that, with
Youtube, literally thousands of video clips have been uploaded that would
not have been approved if the website owner had been required to do some
elementary checks.

I think the law should require website owners to review all submissions and
have a responsibility to remove / not publish uploaders' videos when it is
obvious that copyright infringements have been made.

If the website owners asked uploaders to complete a short questionnaire
before uploading their material, this would give the site owners the
opportunity to remove videos that obviously infringed copyright. For
example, the questions could be along these lines:

1. Have you read the material on this website which explains the
circumstances in which copyright approval should be obtained?

2. Are you the copyright holder of the material you wish to upload? If so,
give your correct full name and address.

3. If you are not the copyright holder, give the name and address of the
copyright holder and the date copyright approval was obtained.

4. Are you aware that severe penalties exist for uploading material that
infringes copyright and that you can be held personally liable if the
information you provide above is false? If in doubt, we suggest that you
should consult your lawyer before uploading material to this site.

Now if an uploader declared that he was the copyright holder, and he then
uploaded a track from a commercial DVD or TV show, then it wouldn't be that
difficult for the website owner to tell whether or not this submission
obviously infringed copyright or not. If the website owner could show that
reasonable steps were taken to eliminate material that obviously infringed
the owners' rights, then this would be sufficient from a legal viewpoint.

I think that these 4 simple questions would reduce the number of "illegal"
uploads significantly and that most people would think twice before
submitting a false name and address for the copyright holder. In addition,
to help uploaders to understand when copyright approval should be obtained,
the copyright notes on the site should be fairly comprehensive.

I guess the above will never happen, but it would protect copyright holders
a little better than at present, what do you think?

[Back to original message]