Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery
detecting porn is an absolute, the only way you could do this in the case of copyright is to ignore the fair use rights of uploaders, accepting blindly the declaration that viacomm the DISTRIBUTOR of many of these shows owns the sole right of distribution. To prove that this is not a fair arguement all youtube will have to do is bring out all the artists, original producers who authorized their distribution of the content.
http://torrentfreak.com/travis-defen...hreats-080731/
http://torrentfreak.com/song-of-the-...mazing-080803/ |
The way I understand it (and I'm not lawyer) is that the DMCA allows a site like Youtube to basically say they are just a host and they have no control over the content on the site and that they allow the users of the site to "police" the content and they remove it when asked. If it is found that they can filter out certain types of content before they ever get up on the site then it will show that Youtube does control at least some of the content on the site and that they are capable of controlling the content on the site. Sure, you can argue the semantics of copyright law into the ground but in many cases it is obvious. If Joe Bob from Kentucky is trying to upload the most recent episode of The Daily Show Youtube could pretty easily assume that he doesn't have permission to do that and if he does he could provide that permission to Youtube.
Take for example songs in a movie. I can't just put a Rolling Stones song in a movie I make without either getting their permission or paying a licensing fee. So if I upload a movie I have made to Youtube and it features a Rolling Stones song in it, Youtube can then assume I don't have the rights/permission to use that song. If I do I can provide it to them. I won't say that I know enough about fair use and those types of things but it is a pretty simple case, at least to me. If I upload something I don't have permission/rights to distribute to Youtube the site then provides whatever that is for its users. The serve ads on the site and make money from something that neither I nor they had the rights/permission to use.
Quote:
and youtube will counter with the arguement that it not weather it copyrighted or not, since copyright is automatically granted but unauthorized or not. Which leads back to all those artist who authorize the distribution despite the fact they sold distribution rights on tv/dvd to viacomm.
the will further point out that companies and organization claim can't be uniformally accepted without some methodology of dispute because these companies have been proven to be wrong in their claims
and they would point to every fair use win by the supreme court, as well as every lose by associations in countries with piracy tax.
They will clearly point out that if you bypass the safe harbor provision/take down request process you would prevent people who may want to dispute the false claims of the copyright holder from defending their rights in court. If they are smart they will plop a pvr /vcr on the jury box and if they had changed the rules like this back then you would never had a right to own a vcr. And then just ask them to not destroy all the future technologies that are based on fair use of copyrighted content, by taking away the right of people to dispute the mistaken claim of absolute rights by the copyright holder.
|
I guess to me there is a big difference between a VCR and Youtube. A VCR you can record a movie or TV show and making copies for other people was a pain in the ass. Even if you made 100 copies the amount of damage you have done to the studio is probably pretty small. With TV shows they still would have the commercials in them (unless you owned editing software back then) and I think that is mostly what the studios care about is getting the commercials seen. These days you can easily edit out the commercials and then upload the program and instead of being seen by a dozen or maybe even 100 people it can be seen by millions. You are no longer sharing it with just your friends, you are sharing it with millions.
Quote:
|
youtube will make a passionate response to all of these claims and tie a ruling in favor of viacomm to a lose of technologies that jury members like to have, and believe they have a right to have. it going to be hard to convince a jury to accept viacomm's arguement that an absolute porn filter (see naughty bits =remove content) should be applied to a fluid condition (copyright , which may or maynot be authorized by fair use, another party in the production chain etc).
|
I'm not so sure it would be that hard to convince a jury. Again I think you can tell them that it is one thing to Tivo a movie or record a TV show and watch it in your house. It is another all together to upload it to a website and let millions of people see it for free and that website is making money off that show/content. Viacom an tell the jury that Youtube didn't have the rights to use this content, they did and they have mad money doing so. I think there are a lot of juries out there that would see that argument and find for Viacom.
In the end it is a complex argument with, at least for me, a pretty simple and basic core. If you don't own the copyright to something or you don't have permission or license to use/distribute it you shouldn't be uploading it to websites or sharing it on torrent sites and the people who do hold the copyrights/rights to that content should have the ability to properly protect it.