Posted by blahblah_nospam@sbcglobal.net on 12/19/06 03:23

"Colin B" <Colin B@cb.org> wrote in message news:45874328$1@clear.net.nz...
>
> "Bill Funk" <BigBill@there.com> wrote in message
> news:2p4do2dbt4i3esi1efevquub24014c75ii@4ax.com...
> > On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 13:31:32 +1300, "Colin B" <Colin B@cb.org> wrote:
> >
> >>Because the copyright holders MUST be aware that large numbers of persons
> >>are publishing all or part of their work on internet, then they need to
> >>get
> >>together to devise ways of stopping this illegal behavior. If the
> >>copyright
> >>holders don't do this, it sends a message to the illegal uploaders that
> >>the
> >>copyright laws are toothless, or that nobody really cares about it. So,
> >>until the law is changed to make website owners jointly responsible along
> >>with the uploaders for publishing "illegal" material, then the copyright
> >>holders are going to lose out.
> >
> > IMO, that points to the need to reconsider the whole idea of
> > "copyright".
> > There's no way, at present, for web presences like Youtube to check
> > each uploaded video for copyright infringement. The technology doesn't
> > allow this at a cost that the current funding can afford.
> > I'm not in any way saying that intellectual property shouldn't be
> > protected. But at the same time, as technology makes it so easy to
> > post a 320x120 (or whatever size these videos are) video of a football
> > game, the task of preventing it becomes unmanagable.
> > At what point, legally, does a business become a venue instead of a
> > publisher? (eBay is, legally, a venue, and not legally responsible for
> > auctions posted unlerss and until it is legally notified of an illegal
> > auction. Is Youtube a publisher or a venue?)
> > At what point does it stop being practical to chase down violations?
> > How much of a country's resources is a country supposed to put into
> > stopping the unstopable? Is the UN going to step in and force
> > countries to adopt a universal copyright law? If so, who enforces it?
> > Something to think about.
>
> I agree that the current laws don't seem to be effective in stopping people
> from posting material to internet, for which they don't have permission from
> the copyright holders. Even if these infringing uploaders are sued, or if
> Youtube is requested to remove the material, it can be readily reposted to
> Youtube by thousands of willing copyright breakers.
>
> So, perhaps the way ahead is for sites, such as Youtube, to pay copyright
> fees and / or licensing fees, out of the advertising revenue they receive.

Ridiculous. That's like asking the US Postal Service to pay
royalties up front for mail it delivers which _might_ _possibly_
infringe on someone's copyright. Or asking UPS and FedEx
to do the same for packages. ISPs are in no better position
to play copyright cops than these other industries.

> If video sharing sites show a willingness to share their profits with the
> legitimate rights owners, then this may give these people the additional
> revenue that they deserve as a result of the publication of their material
> on such web sites. This principle is discussed in this article:
>
> http://news.com.com/Google+shares+ad+wealth+with+videographers/2100-1024_3-6130881.html
>
> Even if video sharing sites do pay fees to the copyright holders, I believe
> they should still warn uploaders not to upload copyright infringing
> material. Infringing uploaders should be aware that video sharing sites are
> not their friends, see this article:
>
> http://news.com.com/YouTubes+no+friend+to+copyright+violators/2100-1030_3-6128252.html

Anyone who's spent more than a few minutes on YouTube,
MySpace, Google Videos etc knows that nearly everything
posted is home brewed and doesn't violate any commercial
copyright.

[Back to original message]