Uhhh, what? You can’t pirate a URL. A URL in itself cannot infringe on copyright, nor can it be protected by copyright. It may direct someone to a page that is infringing/copyrighted or that contains infringing/copyrighted material, but the URL itself is just an address. An address cannot be copyrighted, nor can an address infringe on copyright. The same goes for a URL.
If you’re trying to prevent linking to infringing content via URLs, making the URLs smaller or cut into chunks doesn’t do anything. Do you mean HTML or something? Because that may include copyrighted or pirated material. The URL, though, is unprotectable and cannot contain anything pirated because the URL only contains information on where on the internet to go to.
Uhhh… what does that have to do with holding the makers of the tools used for infringement liable? Obviously, if someone uses software X to make some intro/demo Y that contains pirated material Z, the makers of Y are generally liable for infringement of the original authors of Z’s copyright barring some exceptions. However, if the makers of X satisfy the conditions I listed (which you cut off partway through, BTW), then the makers of X are not liable for infringement just because X was used to create the infringing work Y.
The factors for analysis I gave was for liability on the part of the makers of tools that may possibly be used to create infringing material (as well as hosting or streaming services that may possibly end up hosting some infringing material); it has nothing to do with the infringing nature of any particular content created using those tools. The makers of the software do not have any liability for copyright infringement by users as long as the conditions I gave are met. It really is that simple.
Additionally, it also doesn’t relate to whether some other user of the tools/services is liable for infringement; the sole factor there is whether or not that user directly infringed; even if the makers of the tools/services are found to be contributorily or vicariously liable, that does not necessarily mean that every user of those tools/services are also liable for infringement in any way.
Finally, I know for a fact that Microsoft does not offer that capability to disable screencaptures. Even if they did, there is no legal requirement for them to do so.
Look, using a file format for some software or interactive online service that just so happens to be used for a large number of pirated files does not increase liability. The format is completely and utterly irrelevant to liability for copyright infringement. The makers of the software/service do not become liable for users’ infringing activities just because the file format used is also used for a large number of pirated files. That’s not how liability or copyright law works.
While true, the file formats YouTube accepts and YouTube’s ContentID function have no relation. YouTube accepts common video formats because it’s convenient. They implemented ContentID in order to shut up groups like the MPAA (though there is no legal requirement for them to do so). There is no causal link here. Legally and practically speaking, the file format has absolutely no relevance at all to anything involving copyright on YouTube. If YouTube used a proprietary format instead, that wouldn’t change anything with regards to copyright or piracy.
Software vendors are not required to prevent misuses of technology. No law says that they have to, and failing to do so does not open them up to liability.
Since that’s not how the real world actually works, I honestly don’t care. If anything, you’re just proving how untenable and absurd the copyright maximalist view actually is, but you actually go even further than what copyright maximalists expect.
That has nothing to do with determining whether Nintendo has any say in how Epic chooses to enforce its copyrights or grants licenses. How Nintendo chooses to enforce its copyright or feels copyright law should work has no relevance whatsoever to this situation or what Epic chooses to do or how copyright law actually works in the real world.
Well, first of all, that’s extreme even for copyright maximalism. I don’t think anyone thinks that Nintendo can decide this sort of thing for Epic. Second, the copyright maximalist view is not reflective of what the law actually is.
While I often complain about YouTube’s Content ID system, I haven’t really been doing so here or for the past week at least; I think I might’ve mentioned it once or twice, but it wasn’t in a positive or negative manner. Additionally, that Content ID isn’t illegal or unlawful says absolutely nothing whatsoever about anything we’ve been discussing, nor is it indicative of “any legal issue in the area”. It also has absolutely nothing at all to do with file formats whatsoever.
I don’t think you understand what I said: in the specifics of this case, the authors of the video-capturing software do not have any relevance to the question of whether or not copyright infringement has occurred at all. I wasn’t discussing who would be liable for copyright infringement if it occurred; I was only talking about the analysis of whether the footage in question is infringing on anyone’s copyright at all and, if so, whose. Whether or not the makers of the tools used to produce the footage would be liable for any copyright infringement that occurred in the footage is completely immaterial to the argument I was making. That’s why I was saying I didn’t “forget” to include them: including them would have no effect whatsoever on my analysis, my claims, or my arguments.
But since you’ve mentioned it, I suppose I might as well address that argument for the record. As I have told you countless times before, the makers of some software or interactive service are not liable for infringement that occurs using their software/service as long as 1) the software has substantial noninfringing uses, 2) the makers do not actively and explicitly encourage infringement using their software/service, 3) the makers have no direct involvement in any infringement (that is, they are not actually doing the directly infringing activity themselves), and either 4a) they lack specific knowledge of the specific instance(s) of infringement (general knowledge is insufficient) or 4b) they fundamentally lack the capability of stopping infringement after the fact and the infringing content is not located on devices under their control (which would be the case for most video-capture software). DMCA notices also only apply to interactive service providers online; they don’t really apply in this sort of situation. It’s also not the case that the makers of video-capture software must have a license for anything that gets used in footage obtained through that software by an end user. Makers of video-capture software have no more liability for infringing activity performed using their software by others than makers of a video camera are responsible for infringing activity performed using their device. If I used my iPhone to record a film in a theater and post that footage (unedited) on YouTube, I would be infringing and YouTube would have to comply with a DMCA notice and take down the video, but Apple would not be liable for copyright infringement.
With all that said, that doesn’t even matter in this situation because the footage isn’t even infringing on anyone’s copyright in the first place. As such, there is no infringement in this case for the makers of the software to be liable for to begin with.
True, but the fact is that lacking those features doesn’t trigger liability. Trust me, many games lack proper frame rates, flicker protection, etc., but they don’t lose lawsuits over it.
“Should” being the key word here. A judge can’t, and the people who can won’t. I’m not thrilled about it either, but that’s just how it is, and there isn’t really anything that can be done about that in the near future.
A judge cannot make a “civil arrest” like this. Also, “making an arrest” is not the same as “filing criminal charges”. Like I said, only prosecutors can do the latter in most states. (In some states, private citizens can do so for some crimes, but while at the bench in a courtroom, judges cannot act as private citizens.)
While that may be a common business trick, there’s no evidence at all that that’s the case here. Epic isn’t charging for any technology here; the aforementioned update was completely free to all users (as is Fortnite itself), and Epic had nothing to do with the copyright claims. They haven’t asked for any revenue from YouTubers or streamers that use footage of Fortnite, either.
Finally, there has never been a license where the licensor agrees to provide revenue obtained from the licensed material to the licensee. That doesn’t happen, and you have no evidence to even suggest that your scenario is even plausible. And even if that was the case, that would not explain why Epic quickly patched the game to prevent footage of Fortnite from getting these copyright claims put on them and gave it to all player for free. Seriously, your argument is both invalid and has no basis in reality whatsoever.
On the post: Copyright In The Modern Era: Fortnite Lets Players Mute Emote To Avoid Auto-Copyright Claims Against YouTubers
Re: Re: Re:
I was referring to feedback on his software, but it does also apply to his arguments.
On the post: Copyright In The Modern Era: Fortnite Lets Players Mute Emote To Avoid Auto-Copyright Claims Against YouTubers
Re: Re:
Uhhh, what? You can’t pirate a URL. A URL in itself cannot infringe on copyright, nor can it be protected by copyright. It may direct someone to a page that is infringing/copyrighted or that contains infringing/copyrighted material, but the URL itself is just an address. An address cannot be copyrighted, nor can an address infringe on copyright. The same goes for a URL.
If you’re trying to prevent linking to infringing content via URLs, making the URLs smaller or cut into chunks doesn’t do anything. Do you mean HTML or something? Because that may include copyrighted or pirated material. The URL, though, is unprotectable and cannot contain anything pirated because the URL only contains information on where on the internet to go to.
On the post: Copyright In The Modern Era: Fortnite Lets Players Mute Emote To Avoid Auto-Copyright Claims Against YouTubers
Re: Re:
WTF are you talking about? That word salad has no resemblance to reality.
On the post: Copyright In The Modern Era: Fortnite Lets Players Mute Emote To Avoid Auto-Copyright Claims Against YouTubers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Uhhh… what does that have to do with holding the makers of the tools used for infringement liable? Obviously, if someone uses software X to make some intro/demo Y that contains pirated material Z, the makers of Y are generally liable for infringement of the original authors of Z’s copyright barring some exceptions. However, if the makers of X satisfy the conditions I listed (which you cut off partway through, BTW), then the makers of X are not liable for infringement just because X was used to create the infringing work Y.
The factors for analysis I gave was for liability on the part of the makers of tools that may possibly be used to create infringing material (as well as hosting or streaming services that may possibly end up hosting some infringing material); it has nothing to do with the infringing nature of any particular content created using those tools. The makers of the software do not have any liability for copyright infringement by users as long as the conditions I gave are met. It really is that simple.
Additionally, it also doesn’t relate to whether some other user of the tools/services is liable for infringement; the sole factor there is whether or not that user directly infringed; even if the makers of the tools/services are found to be contributorily or vicariously liable, that does not necessarily mean that every user of those tools/services are also liable for infringement in any way.
Finally, I know for a fact that Microsoft does not offer that capability to disable screencaptures. Even if they did, there is no legal requirement for them to do so.
On the post: Copyright In The Modern Era: Fortnite Lets Players Mute Emote To Avoid Auto-Copyright Claims Against YouTubers
Re: Re:
Look, using a file format for some software or interactive online service that just so happens to be used for a large number of pirated files does not increase liability. The format is completely and utterly irrelevant to liability for copyright infringement. The makers of the software/service do not become liable for users’ infringing activities just because the file format used is also used for a large number of pirated files. That’s not how liability or copyright law works.
On the post: Copyright In The Modern Era: Fortnite Lets Players Mute Emote To Avoid Auto-Copyright Claims Against YouTubers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
While true, the file formats YouTube accepts and YouTube’s ContentID function have no relation. YouTube accepts common video formats because it’s convenient. They implemented ContentID in order to shut up groups like the MPAA (though there is no legal requirement for them to do so). There is no causal link here. Legally and practically speaking, the file format has absolutely no relevance at all to anything involving copyright on YouTube. If YouTube used a proprietary format instead, that wouldn’t change anything with regards to copyright or piracy.
On the post: Copyright In The Modern Era: Fortnite Lets Players Mute Emote To Avoid Auto-Copyright Claims Against YouTubers
Re: Re:
Software vendors are not required to prevent misuses of technology. No law says that they have to, and failing to do so does not open them up to liability.
On the post: Copyright In The Modern Era: Fortnite Lets Players Mute Emote To Avoid Auto-Copyright Claims Against YouTubers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Since that’s not how the real world actually works, I honestly don’t care. If anything, you’re just proving how untenable and absurd the copyright maximalist view actually is, but you actually go even further than what copyright maximalists expect.
On the post: Copyright In The Modern Era: Fortnite Lets Players Mute Emote To Avoid Auto-Copyright Claims Against YouTubers
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That has nothing to do with determining whether Nintendo has any say in how Epic chooses to enforce its copyrights or grants licenses. How Nintendo chooses to enforce its copyright or feels copyright law should work has no relevance whatsoever to this situation or what Epic chooses to do or how copyright law actually works in the real world.
On the post: Copyright In The Modern Era: Fortnite Lets Players Mute Emote To Avoid Auto-Copyright Claims Against YouTubers
Re: Re:
Well, first of all, that’s extreme even for copyright maximalism. I don’t think anyone thinks that Nintendo can decide this sort of thing for Epic. Second, the copyright maximalist view is not reflective of what the law actually is.
On the post: Copyright In The Modern Era: Fortnite Lets Players Mute Emote To Avoid Auto-Copyright Claims Against YouTubers
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I’m not surprised at all. There’s no reason Google should be liable for that to begin with.
Also, seriously, who is this “we” you keep referring to? Who else besides you thinks this?
On the post: Copyright In The Modern Era: Fortnite Lets Players Mute Emote To Avoid Auto-Copyright Claims Against YouTubers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
While I often complain about YouTube’s Content ID system, I haven’t really been doing so here or for the past week at least; I think I might’ve mentioned it once or twice, but it wasn’t in a positive or negative manner. Additionally, that Content ID isn’t illegal or unlawful says absolutely nothing whatsoever about anything we’ve been discussing, nor is it indicative of “any legal issue in the area”. It also has absolutely nothing at all to do with file formats whatsoever.
On the post: Copyright In The Modern Era: Fortnite Lets Players Mute Emote To Avoid Auto-Copyright Claims Against YouTubers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don’t think you understand what I said: in the specifics of this case, the authors of the video-capturing software do not have any relevance to the question of whether or not copyright infringement has occurred at all. I wasn’t discussing who would be liable for copyright infringement if it occurred; I was only talking about the analysis of whether the footage in question is infringing on anyone’s copyright at all and, if so, whose. Whether or not the makers of the tools used to produce the footage would be liable for any copyright infringement that occurred in the footage is completely immaterial to the argument I was making. That’s why I was saying I didn’t “forget” to include them: including them would have no effect whatsoever on my analysis, my claims, or my arguments.
But since you’ve mentioned it, I suppose I might as well address that argument for the record. As I have told you countless times before, the makers of some software or interactive service are not liable for infringement that occurs using their software/service as long as 1) the software has substantial noninfringing uses, 2) the makers do not actively and explicitly encourage infringement using their software/service, 3) the makers have no direct involvement in any infringement (that is, they are not actually doing the directly infringing activity themselves), and either 4a) they lack specific knowledge of the specific instance(s) of infringement (general knowledge is insufficient) or 4b) they fundamentally lack the capability of stopping infringement after the fact and the infringing content is not located on devices under their control (which would be the case for most video-capture software). DMCA notices also only apply to interactive service providers online; they don’t really apply in this sort of situation. It’s also not the case that the makers of video-capture software must have a license for anything that gets used in footage obtained through that software by an end user. Makers of video-capture software have no more liability for infringing activity performed using their software by others than makers of a video camera are responsible for infringing activity performed using their device. If I used my iPhone to record a film in a theater and post that footage (unedited) on YouTube, I would be infringing and YouTube would have to comply with a DMCA notice and take down the video, but Apple would not be liable for copyright infringement.
With all that said, that doesn’t even matter in this situation because the footage isn’t even infringing on anyone’s copyright in the first place. As such, there is no infringement in this case for the makers of the software to be liable for to begin with.
On the post: Copyright In The Modern Era: Fortnite Lets Players Mute Emote To Avoid Auto-Copyright Claims Against YouTubers
Re: Re:
Also, none of that really refutes the points that others have been making.
On the post: Copyright In The Modern Era: Fortnite Lets Players Mute Emote To Avoid Auto-Copyright Claims Against YouTubers
Re:
It’s not just you. He does tend to ignore feedback.
On the post: Copyright In The Modern Era: Fortnite Lets Players Mute Emote To Avoid Auto-Copyright Claims Against YouTubers
Re: Re:
True, but the fact is that lacking those features doesn’t trigger liability. Trust me, many games lack proper frame rates, flicker protection, etc., but they don’t lose lawsuits over it.
On the post: Judge Tears Into Cops For Beating A Man Who Dared To Question Their Words And Actions
Re: Re: Re:
“Should” being the key word here. A judge can’t, and the people who can won’t. I’m not thrilled about it either, but that’s just how it is, and there isn’t really anything that can be done about that in the near future.
On the post: Judge Tears Into Cops For Beating A Man Who Dared To Question Their Words And Actions
Re: Re: Re: Re:
A judge cannot make a “civil arrest” like this. Also, “making an arrest” is not the same as “filing criminal charges”. Like I said, only prosecutors can do the latter in most states. (In some states, private citizens can do so for some crimes, but while at the bench in a courtroom, judges cannot act as private citizens.)
On the post: Judge Tears Into Cops For Beating A Man Who Dared To Question Their Words And Actions
Re: Re: Re: Re:
A private citizen cannot unilaterally grant judges any authority at all.
On the post: Copyright In The Modern Era: Fortnite Lets Players Mute Emote To Avoid Auto-Copyright Claims Against YouTubers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
While that may be a common business trick, there’s no evidence at all that that’s the case here. Epic isn’t charging for any technology here; the aforementioned update was completely free to all users (as is Fortnite itself), and Epic had nothing to do with the copyright claims. They haven’t asked for any revenue from YouTubers or streamers that use footage of Fortnite, either.
Finally, there has never been a license where the licensor agrees to provide revenue obtained from the licensed material to the licensee. That doesn’t happen, and you have no evidence to even suggest that your scenario is even plausible. And even if that was the case, that would not explain why Epic quickly patched the game to prevent footage of Fortnite from getting these copyright claims put on them and gave it to all player for free. Seriously, your argument is both invalid and has no basis in reality whatsoever.
Next >>