Quote:
Originally Posted by **********
(Post 16964118)
While youtube may be profiting from the ads, I wouldn't blame them per se.
Today while searching Youtube I came across an entire 2 hour movie ("DOA"), that proudly displayed a watermark of the person who copied and uploaded the movie.
What you tube should do is force users to properly register with them before they can upload any content, and properly hold responsible the thieves who are stealing the content in the first place. In fact, every tube site should do this. Sure its a lot more work and it would mean the death of many tube sites, but so what? It'll reduce the amount of stolen material found on these sites, and the sites who do things properly and legally will be the ones who prosper.
|
wrong only those sites which do it the outdated old way will prosper and all the new income streams will be killed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nautilus
(Post 16964575)
Exactly. Safe harbor was intended for classic internet service prodivers such as hosting companies, where a client always has a name and a last name. If there's an infringement - subpoena their host, get the identity and sue. That's how it was supposed to work, and that's how it SHOULD work, no matter if their host is free or paid. I really hope that kind of "know your client" policy will be established in courts for ISP companies if they want safe harbor protection. If you know who's your client, than he/she is responsible for infringement. If you don't, than YOU is responsible. It's that simple, and that's how it should work.
|
total bullshit
the entire purpose of the safe harbor provision was to prevent the new takedown rules from squashing fair use. The old system required you to prove that it was infringement by getting a COURT ORDER before the content had to be taken down.
Quote:
If for example the likes of gideon want to upload full WB library in HD quality to some goddamn motherfucking stealing torrent, fine. Do that, just submit your REAL name to the host. And than when sued tell whatever bs excuse you had for that to the judge - fair use parody backup whatever. And than let's see how's that going to fly in REAL court, not GFY court.
|
i personally have no problem with such a requirement if the copyright holder was forced to pay 3 times their requested damages if i was successful in making the arugement it was fair use.
If they refused then all their content should go into the public domain. the attempt to
extend the conditional copyright monopoly into an absolute sherman anti trust monopoly should be treated with the same anti trust penalities that other monopolies suffer.
IF a copyright holder refuses to pay then all of their copyright should be voided and their content goes into the public domain.
Without such a balance copyright holders would basically blanket any upload, fair use or not with mountains of legal filing and basically create the type of censorship that the safe harbor /dispute policy was designed to handle.
Quote:
I have no problems with real fair use - but to make sure it's real fair use and not the lame bs excuse for stealing, just let them submit their real names before uploading stuff anywhere. People tend to think kinda way more responsibly when they know their real names are on file.
|
sure you do, you keep reclasifying real fair use as some sort of fake fair use
you argue points that the supreme court has already ruled against you to try and claim that things that are fair use (like timeshifting using a cloud) are not.
like i said if the responsibility is one sided it will be abused and create a form of censorship so if you truely believe such a change is necessary to stop "fake" fair use.
If you truely believe everyone who is fighting this is not misrepresenting "real" fair use as fake, then you should have no problem paying 3 times what you asked for in damages if the courts rule that you are misrepresenting "real" fair use as fake.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CyberClaire
(Post 16964166)
I posted this in another recent thread ....
What was also interesting though was the fact Viacom was putting up massive amounts of videos in a slightly less than perfect quality(to emulate home user submits) under different user accounts as it noticed the amount of traffic YouTube was producing and saw it as good PR for its programs at the same time complaining of copywrite theft.
Apparantly Viacom put up so much content itself it got to a point that even they couldnt tell what items they had or had not uploaded ....:1orglaugh
This case is showing a lot of interesting tactics/pr/game plans that exsist in marketing......a lot more info will come out over the next few months im sure.....
|
one of the biggest problem is that viacomm is not the content producer but the distributor of the content, so when the content producer uploads it and therefore gives permission it not really a violation.
