RIAA Admits It Wants DMCA Overhaul; Blames Judges For 'Wrong' Interpretation
from the uh-sure dept
We've discussed how E-PARASITE/SOPA is really an attempt by the entertainment industry to rewrite the DMCA, even though they pretend otherwise. However, it appears that the RIAA is now comfortable with admitting that's the real goal of its legislative agenda these days. The RIAA's litigation boss, Jennifer Pariser, famous for making highly questionable statements under oath in trials against people accused of sharing music they love, is now claiming that the DMCA wording is great, but that the interpretation by the courts has just been dreadful -- so Congress should clarify that and slap the judges down. As reported by Greg Sandoval at CNET:"I think Congress got it right, but I think the courts are getting it wrong," Pariser said during a panel discussion at the NY Entertainment & Technology Law Conference. "I think the courts are interpreting Congress' statute in a manner that is entirely too restrictive of content owners' rights and too open to [Internet] service providers.This is pretty typical of the RIAA. The one part of the DMCA that they fought tooth and nail when it was put together was the service provider safe harbors. However, it was a key part of the negotiations with the tech industry, as part of the tradeoff to get the rest of the (dreadful) DMCA. The RIAA has always hated the safe harbors. It's just so much easier to make third party service providers liable. It's easier to sue service providers rather than fans.
"We might need to go to Congress at some point for a fix," Pariser added. "Not because the statute was badly drafted but because the interpretation has been so hamstrung by court decisions."
So now they're rewriting history, pretending that the safe harbors weren't intended to do what they do. This is a joke. If you talk to folks on the tech side who negotiated the safe harbors, this was exactly how the safe harbors were meant to work. If anything, some of those involved are upset that the safe harbors aren't even stronger (as they were in the CDA for non-intellectual property issues). What Pariser and the RIAA really mean when they mock judges for their rulings on the safe harbors is that they never liked the safe harbors in the first place, so the best way to get what they always wanted (i.e., no real safe harbors) is to pretend that it's all a big "misinterpretation" that needs clarification from Congress.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, dmca, interpretation, jennifer pariser, safe harbors
Companies: riaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Pull the other one, it's got legalese on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Will most likely never happen but *shrug*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You mean Comcast would shut off NBC/U.
Will most likely never happen but *shrug*
Ya think?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Instead, what happened is that a whole new class of "service providers" popped up, and suddenly everyone on the internet was a "service provider" instead of a website.
Youtube is a great example. They generate their own HTML, they sort, aggregate, mix, and republish content on new pages, ad advertising, and the like. Yet they want to be treated in the same manner as your ISP who only provides connectivity.
The notification was intended to keep straight hosting companies (those that provide a server and a connection) from being responsible for the content on their servers. Instead, it has been taken to include things like file lockers, which are not hosts in any traditional sense, and who make their money not off of hosting the material, but in charging access for it - and offer the hosting option entirely anonymously.
What was intended, what was understood, and what happened are three totally different things.
So no, they aren't going back to change DMCA, they are just working to narrow down what a content aggregation service is allowed to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Gold Star~!
Spoken as though it could be true, without hesitation or doubt! Just the right mix of fact, opinion-as-fact, and outright BS to keep most people on their toes and guessing.
Very good, there are many who could learn from your example.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Gold Star~!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Gold Star~!
Youtube DOESN'T produce their content, PEOPLE upload stuff. Much like cyberlockers (although some of them do promote infringement to boost their sales while others such as RapidShare works seriously to comply with DMCS stuff).
But you know that, you are just trolling ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Gold Star~!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Gold Star~!
See how silly your argument is?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gold Star~!
But they choose the content. You are misaligning your analogy - the service provider in this case is more like the printer. If a newspaper contracts its printing from a separate press company (as many do) and that newspaper runs afoul of copyright, I doubt many courts would accept the owner of the press as the liable party.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gold Star~!
They chose not to look at everything they publish. That's their fault, not anyone else's.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gold Star~!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gold Star~!
A web host doesn't make editorial choices. They don't decide what is on your site. They don't decide your background colors, foreground colors, they don't put ads, links, or other things on your pages, they don't restrict direct access to your files if you choose to make them available.
A web host provides you the digital equivilant to a phone and a phone line. They can add all sorts of features on the phone, they can give you call waiting.. but in the end, it's just a phone. They don't make you make those obscene phonecalls to your ex, they don't make you dial 911 repeatedly after a night of drunken partying... they just provide the phone line.
Web hosts provide everything needed - but they don't have a say in content at all. They don't get in the middle of you doing what you want with your server / account / domain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gold Star~!
I'm still honestly not seeing the distinction. It seems like either they are both content-neutral service providers, or they aren't. After all, both simply provide the tools to upload and host content - they just do so in different ways.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gold Star~!
Youtube sets up the pages, they control what is shown with it, how it is shown, how it is listed, what other pages it publishes it on, etc. You as the uploader don't control that.
As soon as they take control of the file and start making choices as to how it is used, they stopped being a host and started to be a publisher.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gold Star~!
I still feel like it's a totally arbitrary distinction you are making, simply because one thing is newer and feels "different" while the other runs on such old and deeply ingrained technology that you don't think about it anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gold Star~!
"I still feel like it's a totally arbitrary distinction you are making, simply because one thing is newer and feels "different" while the other runs on such old and deeply ingrained technology that you don't think about it anymore."
Not at all. The answer isn't in "who owns the box" or "this is different", it's in control, application, and presentation. Combining anonymous uploading with non-responsiblity for the sites that publish these user contributions has created a legal null, where people can act with impunity and nobody is responsible for anything.
You are confusing a legal and responsibility issue with a technical one. The 1s and 0s aren't doing anything wrong - the people are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gold Star~!
So is it your position that branded free hosting platforms like Blogger, Tumblr and Wordpress.com should all be liable for every user-created blog they host? Because that seems highly problematic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gold Star~!
Again No, but with a little asterix.
The issue for these sites is the anonymous nature of the users. blogger and sites like them are unable to show who the actual contributors are. They are trying to hang on the "innocent host" provisions, but are unable to show who is actually liable for the content.
That is another part of the deal: If they could actually show who they were hosting for, the liability could be applied to the end users. Choosing to allow anonymous blog creation and uploading of materials puts them in a black hole.
The cure for many of these services is to "know your customer", and be willing to provide that information in the case of legal action. Not being able to do this pretty much leaves them with all of the liablity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gold Star~!
Blogger can't show who its contributors are but YouTube can? You realize they both use the exact same Google Accounts right?
You've lost me here, sorry...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gold Star~!
I can create as many fake google accounts as I need to publish all sorts of crap on blogger, fill the site with offensive material, copyright violations, and all that, and there would be absolutely no way (except the dreaded IP address that you think is not sufficient) to track me down.
End result? All posts are anonymous.
Sorry if you cannot think past the end of your nose. Would you care to try again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gold Star~!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gold Star~!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gold Star~!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gold Star~!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gold Star~!
Uhm... Google+ does require ID if they believe that you're not using your real name
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gold Star~!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gold Star~!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gold Star~!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gold Star~!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gold Star~!
*THIS* is the reason why YouTube qualifies for safe harbor. They have no knowledge that the uploaded material is infringing. As long as they remove anything that's pointed out to them, they're safe.
It doesn't matter how much automated processing YouTube does on the video, how they present the uploaded video, whether advertising was inserted by any means... The ONLY important thing is that nobody at YouTube knew that the video had infringing content.
And you can't just say "YouTube should be able to automatically identify infringing content and stop it being shown." The human brain is incredibly good at pattern matching, a million miles beyond what any computer program can do at present. In other words, there is no 100% effective way to detect infringing content. Even 20% accuracy is pushing the envelope with current technology.
Anonymous Coward: It is currently impossible for any site to prevent its users from uploading infringing content without having a human review *everything* that is uploaded. This requires hiring enough staff to review all of the content, which increases the costs to the business. Small start-ups may not be able to afford the additional costs, killing innovation. Existing companies would have to curtail user uploads if they could not afford to hire enough people to review everything at a reasonable pace, again killing innovation.
Think of YouTube for a bit. With 48 hours of video being uploaded every second, they'd need to have roughly 172,800 reviewers active *every second of the day* in order to keep up. Assuming that each person works 8 hours a day, they'd need more than half a million reviewers on payroll. If each reviewer was paid $US10K a year, that would come to more than $US5,000,000,000. That's right: five billion US dollars a year, just paying for reviewers. Is it really fair to lump that cost onto YouTube?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gold Star~!
Those rankings and ads? Those are all controlled by the users. No video gets advertising unless the uploader requests it. No video get ranked unless the viewers rank it. Nothing is done by YouTube that would give it editorial control over content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gold Star~!
Who's silly again?
@Marcus and Zack
That. He's either a clueless troll or he's deliberately misleading. And a troll regardless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gold Star~!
Try to access an uploaded video on youtube without getting a youtube logo added, without popup ads, without links, etc.
GOOD LUCK! You know the person who uploaded the file didn't do any of that. Must have been the page coding fairy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gold Star~!
Umm... okay. Here is a direct link to download a YouTube FLV. That took me about five seconds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gold Star~!
I too can look at the code and attempt to download the pieces. Your link sucked by the way, broken with way too much stuff in it, and required the user to be logged in even have a chance.
The link they give you when you upload something isn't the file, it's a webpage.
Why do you have such a hard time grasping a simple concept?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gold Star~!
So? When you sign up for web hosting, they don't give you a blank wired box for you to work with. They give you a fully-stocked web-hosting suite with tonnes of tools to help you host your content. Still not seeing the difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gold Star~!
Please describe your "fully-stocked web-hosting suite", and try to remember that I have been at this for a very long time, since before you were born.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gold Star~!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gold Star~!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gold Star~!
Analog analogies are not like digital analogies because . . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gold Star~!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Gold Star~!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Gold Star~!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Gold Star~!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Shit. I thought all those were real ppl on the videos. I didn't know 3D and hardware had advanced that much that you can generate laughing babies via computer. Google is truly scary =(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
They aren't just a "service provider", they actually publish a website.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
In any case, I'm sure the infringement will completely cease since their employees are the only ones building the site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
*gasp*
Tell the police! They have to shut Youtube down because they're liable for someone else's content on a website!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Where do you draw the line? A typical web host does a lot more than just provide "a server and a connection". It sets up and manages server software, virtualizes server spaces, provides nameservers, provides a graphical back-end with analytics and file managers - most provide website templates and site building tools, pre-made scripts and plugins, ecommerce platforms...
By your analysis, couldn't you argue that a web host can only provide a functioning box - making you install Apache/etc. and set it all up yourself? If a host offers an out-of-the-box ecommerce solution (as most do now) would that make them liable for someone who sells counterfeit goods?
I don't think the line on "service provider" versus "publisher" is very easy to draw technologically... the only reasonable test seems to be: who is responsible for uploading content. And that's the user, whether it's a web host or a file locker.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I too disagree with his point, I believe safe harbor was intended to apply not only to the pipe providers but also to sites like BBS�s, web forums, comments pages on weblogs etc, to prevent them being prosecuted for the violations put on their sites by end users. Personally I believe this applies to youtube as well, the AC does not. He makes the point that since youtube formats and sticks ads on the page to generate revenue they are not a neutral site in terms of content but a business that ultimately takes user uploads and modifies it making the active content producers, and therefore not allowed to use safe harbour as a defense.
I do agree with the fact that even though youtube gets a tremendous volume of business via video uploads, if they are liable for the content, the volume itself does not eliminate their responsibility to make sure that content is legal. If youtube can not execute their business model without violating the law, well they need to change the model. Again I think youtube is ok in what they do, but I can see how other people feel otherwise, and I do not insult everyone who disagrees with me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Uhm... WTF?
Is there a point to this or are you just being contrarian?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nope, you are drawing the line in an odd place to try to make a point, but you are failing.
See, even if they offer you a service such as this, they are not actively involved in it. If they are selling your a solution (or renting it to you), it is the same as renting you a server or any other feature (such as have MySQL or FFMpeg on the server example).
Now, if they are also processing the credit cards, and taking an active part of your business, then they cross the line to no longer just offering hosting (naked services) and have become part of the business, not just someone providing a "pay for use" service. Remember, the collection of money is directly in the line of business, not off to the side.
Templates and all that stuff are not editorial decisions. They are not choices. They are options, nothing more.
"I don't think the line on "service provider" versus "publisher" is very easy to draw technologically..."
I do. A real host would allow you to upload files, and would serve those files when someone requests them, and nothing more. Youtube is not that sort of a "host", in that they aggregate content and republish it on various pages. They aren't just giving you storage and a net connection that you can work with, they are running a website that publishes pages. They take your content uploaded and publish it, providing formating, advertising, layouts, branding, and all that other stuff. They aren't just storing your file.
A file locker is the same issue - most of them don't just allow you to link directly to a file you upload and serve it, they put it on an html page, they put advertising, they split the file into blocks and they charge users to access the content. They are a reseller of your uploads, nothing less. They aren't just hosting.
A host doesn't manipulate content, they provide the means by which YOU can manipulate content, producer web pages, sites, links, downloads... a publisher does those things. Youtube, most file lockers, and the like are all publishers... in the end. They aren't innocent, they aren't hands off... they are hands on, even if those hands are automated hands.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sorry you can't understand a very basic concept.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Next?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They aren't actually deciding what to put on the page they are letting the 1's and 0's do it for them.
What really pissed me of about the Entertainment industry is they contribute a very small % of a nations GDP but still manage to get laws passed that favour them... if the Tech industry started getting laws passed based on the % of GDP they create the politicians and law systems would collapse under the weight of requests.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And that is what Youtube does. THank you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"just giving you storage and a net connection that you can work with"
so a site hosting a torrent file (loaded by a user) is protected under your discription?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What the MAFIAA wants is cart blanche to threaten other business so they can get away with their absurd monopoly of life + 95 years.
Theirs is not the only business that needs protections, other business needs even more protection against people who already have absurd powers, the real criminals are artists and their representatives i.e. MAFIAA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Judge William Adams beats daughter for filesharing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Further, wikipedia defines a service provider as "A service provider is an entity that provides services to other entities. Usually, this refers to a business that provides subscription or web service to other businesses or individuals. Examples of these services include Internet access, Mobile phone operators, and web application hosting. The term is more often applied to communication services than to other kinds of service industry."
I strongly, strongly agree with this definition. It seems that we are arguing that this definition itself is wrong because, if it is correct, YouTube is genuinely a Service Provider.
Would you define "host" for me and "Service Provider" for me? I think the clarity would help drive this discussion some more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
1. They'll explain their point of view and we all can have a good discussion
2. They respond with insults, and I ask them again, noting that they can either explain their point of view, or be discounted entirely
The burden of proof is a great tool to employ :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
#DEFINE Host;
int main ()
{
cout >> "Thank you, I'll be here all night";
}
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's part of the problem. Youtube isn't a service provider, any more than Wired.com is a webhost. Youtube accepts user contributions to their website. They publish.
The wikipedia definition makes it pretty clear, "he term is more often applied to communication services than to other kinds of service industry". The original idea of DMCA wasn't to give a pass to every website on earth as a "service provider" but only to exempt those who provide what might be called "naked services".
Maybe the easier way to define a host is in the end result. If you have a host for your files, you and you alone control how those files are presented, you choose the file names, the directory structure that you store them in, you choose if they need password access or not, you control how you will present them if you will put them on html, as direct files, or anything in between. If there is a charge for access, you and you alone will be the one deciding how that charge is made, how much, to who, and what access it grants. Your hosting company provides you the technology to make it possible, but they do not get involved in the operation of your server / hosting space.
For most people, that host is a service provider.
Now, Youtube? Not a host, because you can't control the content or access to it. You cannot design your pages, you cannot charge for access, you cannot decide your directory structures, or anything like that - someone else makes all of those choices for you. Youtube is a publication, one that accepts user submissions to appear on it's website.
File locker? Pretty much the same - you can't control anything to do with the file once uploaded (except perhaps to delete it), you don't control access, you can't decide where it will appear, you cannot control access to it - that is decided by the file locker site. It's their URL, their servers, their web pages, their design, their access control... they choose, not you.
It's not east to put in words, but simple in concept.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Let's keep going with this. Craigslist also ought to be held liable for any copyrighted text or images you put in your craigslist ads. Again, you can't control anything to do with the ad once uploaded (except perhaps to delete it), you don't conrol access, you can't decide where it will appear, you cannot control access to it - that is decided by craigslist. It's their URL, their servers, their web pages, their design, their access control... they choose, not you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That was Chosen Reject's point going way over your head.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You keep saying this, and it keeps being false. The Congressional record uses "an online site offering audio or video" as the example of what constitutes a "service provider."
Not a host, because you can't control the content or access to it. You cannot design your pages, you cannot charge for access, you cannot decide your directory structures, or anything like that
You absolutely control the content or access to it - by uploading it, or removing it. You can't "design" the pages, but you can alter their appearance (change the colors and whatnot). You can choose whether to place ads on it, or not. And most "hosts" don't allow you complete control over the file structure, either (mainly for security purposes).
The exact same thing could be said for "file lockers." Most allow you to "control access" to your file (make it public or private, or even password-protected).
On the other hand, by your definition, many webhosts would be considered "hosts" either. There were a lot of webhosts at the time (mainly the free ones) that wouldn't allow you to do anything but use their templates, and put ads on your site whether you wanted them or not.
So, not only are you wrong about what Congress intended, you are wrong about how service providers work. Nicely done!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
...um, obviously I meant "many webhosts would not be considered 'hosts' either." Durr. Sorry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I don't think the public would tolerate that - and the likely result would be a major reform of copyright law in ways you would greatly dislike.
Be careful what you wish for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The internet should just be a DRM storefront with advertising.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is, of course, completely false. If this were true, 17 USC 512(c) would not exist.
It's also very clear if you read the congressional record that sites like YouTube were absolutely supposed to be included in the DMCA safe harbors. ("For example, the activity at an online site offering audio or video...")
So, no, what they (and you) are saying is absolute bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Quick fix
Problem solved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Quick fix
I think they already do have a secret interpretation of copyright laws - just look how they are stretching existing laws in their legal theories concerning the domain names they have seized for alleged copyright violations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Quick fix
http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2005/11/5580.ars
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Judicial branch trying to do its job
If the Judicial branch has "destroyed" the DMCA, then that means they have decided that the DMCA was *not* in the country's best interest per the courts.
Congress needs to be put in its place - if it's drafting shitty laws, then those laws need to fail - period.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DMCA /wasn't/ intended for symbiotic copyright infringement.
"people accused of sharing music they love" -- What a cute elliptical evasion of the truth that they were engaged in stealing.
It's /your/ egregious mis-statements, Mike, that drive me to even minimally support the RIAA view; such weak and wrong arguments are why I suspect you of being an industry shill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DMCA /wasn't/ intended for symbiotic copyright infringement.
No, they were engaged in copyright infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DMCA /wasn't/ intended for symbiotic copyright infringement.
1. YouTube employs copyright filters and actively shuts down content based off of DMCA requests. They are very proactive and responsive to copyright issues. Given that, can you point out more how they are dodging copyright? Perhaps I am missing something?
2. Stealing is not the same thing as copyright violation. Remember, stealing is when the original good no longer exists for the original owner to profit from. Copyright violation is when they copy a file that they were not authorized to copy. There is no lost good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DMCA /wasn't/ intended for symbiotic copyright infringement.
What a cute hyperbolic evasion of the truth that they were engaged in infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: DMCA /wasn't/ intended for symbiotic copyright infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: DMCA /wasn't/ intended for symbiotic copyright infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: DMCA /wasn't/ intended for symbiotic copyright infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: DMCA /wasn't/ intended for symbiotic copyright infringement.
Supreme Court explicitly said it was not theft:
- Dowling v. United States
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: DMCA /wasn't/ intended for symbiotic copyright infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DMCA /wasn't/ intended for symbiotic copyright infringement.
Personal problems at home?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DMCA /wasn't/ intended for symbiotic copyright infringement.
If what you consider to be a poor argument from a person on one side of an argument so easily sways you to the other side, you must be highly susceptible to persuasive arguments. I recommend thinking for yourself before letting what your consider to be poor arguments make you bounce to the extreme opposite viewpoint.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: DMCA /wasn't/ intended for symbiotic copyright infringement.
Here, Ootb, you know you can use real HTML tags, but steadfastly refuse to use them. It makes your comments look like "No! I'll write what I want!", like an immature five year old.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DMCA /wasn't/ intended for symbiotic copyright infringement.
No, it was passed to create legal safe harbors to link sites and file hosts, when those links and files were generated by automatic searches and/or users.
In other words: it was designed to work exactly like it is working right now.
What a cute elliptical evasion of the truth that they were engaged in stealing.
As has been said before: copyright infringement is not stealing. They are two completely different things - both legally and ethically. (For one thing, the legal punishment for copyright infringement is much, much worse than the punishment for theft.)
And when we're talking about people using sites like YouTube, "sharing music they love" is completely appropriate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: DMCA /wasn't/ intended for symbiotic copyright infringement.
Yes, it's infringement. It's also theft.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: DMCA /wasn't/ intended for symbiotic copyright infringement.
er... when? Because all I remember is how they specifically called it NOT theft:
"...interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright... 'an infringer of the copyright.'"
- Dowling v. United States (1985)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: DMCA /wasn't/ intended for symbiotic copyright infringement.
"deliberate unlawful copying is no less an unlawful taking of property than garden-variety theft. See, e.g., 18 U. S. C. �2319 (criminal copyright infringement); �1961(1)(B) (copyright infringement can be a predicate act under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act); �1956(c)(7)"
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-480.ZC1.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: DMCA /wasn't/ intended for symbiotic copyright infringement.
...Breyer says it's "an unlawful taking of property." Not theft. The fact that it is compared with theft ("no less... than theft") shows that the two are distinct.
In fact, it was probably a bad choice of words on Breyer's part, since none of the statutes he quotes actually call infringement "a taking of property," or the equivalent. Nor is he overturning, or even attempting to overturn, Dowling (which his statement, if taken literally, would do). A better choice of words would be "no less an unlawful activity."
Also, that's not actually the opinion of the court; it's a concurring opinion. The actual opinion of the court (written by Souter) does not even mention the word "theft."
And in Dowling, the entire issue was whether copyright infringement was theft. That was the sole issue the court had to decide. And they decided it was not.
The Grokster sentence you're quoting, on the other hand, was a throwaway line in a concurring opinion, in a case that did not even consider whether infringement was theft. It did not even come close to "speaking directly" on that subject; it didn't touch that subject at all.
So, no, sorry. The Supreme Court didn't change its mind. Copyright infringement is not theft.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: DMCA /wasn't/ intended for symbiotic copyright infringement.
I don't expect AC will bother to reply and humiliate himself further.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DMCA /wasn't/ intended for symbiotic copyright infringement.
And /who/ gives a crap about /you/?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So, given a user-uploaded video, how can the site operator find out whether it is infringing or not?
In the first place, almost everything that qualifies as any sort of expressive work is copyrighted as soon as it's created. So that doesn't tell us much.
The next question is who is the copyright owner. If (as a site operator) I make users click something that says they're the owner or authorized by the owner, is that enough? If not, how can I tell? There is no central registry of copyrighted works. Even if there were, how could a site operator determine whether a video or music file was or was not the same as a work in the list, if the names were different?
Next is the question of whether the upload is or is not authorized by the copyright holder. Again, there is no central registry of such things. It would take all the IT resources in the world to construct and maintain such a vast database of constantly changing information, and presumably some new, mythical technology to match actual files with items in the database.
The companies seeking to destroy the "safe harbor" provisions do not even attempt to explain how any site owner could accept user content with risk of liability, if not for the "safe harbor" provisions. Demanding something impossible as a condition of operating is an order to shut down.
Does techdirt have any way of verifying that this post does not infringe someone's copyright? If it had to do that, the risk of liability would require it to stop letting users post comments. Every site publishing anything from users would be subject to being bankrupted at any moment by users infriging copyright, because there is no way, even in principle, that it can prevent them doing so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In the first place, almost everything that qualifies as any sort of expressive work is copyrighted as soon as it's created. So that doesn't tell us much."""
MAFIAA: Get your damn logic off my lawn!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The lobbyists are right.
They didn't get their money's worth and that is why they are back complaining. Once they are done reminding the pols who is in charge it will be fixed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Petition to Stop the E-Parasite Act
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Real Ignorant Arseholes of America
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymity and the slippery slope
I'm not saying it's accurate. I didn't bring up the issue of anonymity and I'm not entirely clear what it has to do with this debate anyway - I was just
pointing out that, whatever he was saying about anonymity (still not sure what) must apply to both blogger AND youtube
What the other AC is trying to get at is anonymity itself.
You can't enforce copyright law effectively against noncommercial file sharing without compromising the right of anonymity.
If you tighten the DMCA's safe harbor, and narrow the definition of protected service provider, all pirates could switch to proxy providers.
Paradoxically under AC's notion of the safe harbor, Youtube is not protected because it takes part in the editorial selection and modification of the uploaded content, but a proxy provider like BTGuard or a commercial Omemo service would still enjoy the safe harbor.
A proxy provider doesn't store all trafick and has no part in editing the content sent from user to user.
But now, you can be sure that the RIAA will argue that even a passive carrier of encrypted trafick should be liable for copyright violations unless he or she is able to identify the users.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]