homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.221.175.46
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Visit PubCon.com
Home / Forums Index / WebmasterWorld / Content, Writing and Copyright
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: not2easy

Content, Writing and Copyright Forum

This 31 message thread spans 2 pages: 31 ( [1] 2 > >     
Copyright Infringement Case Clears ISP Of Responsibility
engine




msg:4074377
 4:05 pm on Feb 4, 2010 (gmt 0)

Copyright Infringement Case Clears ISP Of Responsibility [news.bbc.co.uk]
In the first case of its kind, an Australian court has ruled that an internet service provider cannot be responsible for illegal downloading.

iiNet, Australia's third largest ISP, was taken to court by a group of 34 movie production houses.

The group included the Australian divisions of Universal Pictures, Warner Brothers and 20th Century Fox.

They claimed that iiNet was guilty of copyright infringement for not preventing illegal downloads of films.


 

Syzygy




msg:4074472
 6:33 pm on Feb 4, 2010 (gmt 0)

And the bit at the end of the article, just to show what a topsy-turvy world it is...

In Italy, meanwhile, the government is proposing new laws which would make video channels such as YouTube directly responsible for copyright infringement if their users upload copyrighted material. The proposals would require YouTube, owned by Google, to acquire a broadcasting licence in order to operate.

graeme_p




msg:4074802
 8:46 am on Feb 5, 2010 (gmt 0)

The Italian government (like others) does not like the internet because it is harder to manipulate a large number of sources of information (i.e. spin doctors have a hard time).

In its case it dislikes internet video even more because the prime minister owns the country's three biggest private TV stations.

On the other hand governments like the internet because it is easy to censor.

sullen




msg:4074881
 12:36 pm on Feb 5, 2010 (gmt 0)

The Italian laws though are about the site rather than the ISP - that's a very different case. I think sites should be responsible for copyright infringement, even if the offending items are uploaded by users (they could always moderate them).

ISPs on the other hand, should not be responsible for policing the internet. they provide access to it - that's all. I'm quite surprised this case was brought at all.

StoutFiles




msg:4074882
 12:38 pm on Feb 5, 2010 (gmt 0)

In Italy, meanwhile, the government is proposing new laws which would make video channels such as YouTube directly responsible for copyright infringement if their users upload copyrighted material. The proposals would require YouTube, owned by Google, to acquire a broadcasting licence in order to operate.


It's more then likely that Google will make users from Italy agree to a Terms Of Use before uploading videos, or block Italy altogether should problems arise.

Youtube is one big copyright infringement, at least Italy sees it for what it is.

Rosalind




msg:4074938
 2:44 pm on Feb 5, 2010 (gmt 0)

I think sites should be responsible for copyright infringement, even if the offending items are uploaded by users (they could always moderate them).

I agree. Even if they're not paying staff to do this, there are always ways to implement user moderation.

ytswy




msg:4074966
 3:42 pm on Feb 5, 2010 (gmt 0)

I think sites should be responsible for copyright infringement, even if the offending items are uploaded by users (they could always moderate them).


I disagree, although I appreciate that the current situation is a pain for rights holders.

Saying that YouTube should moderate user submissions just means you think YouTube and similar sites should not exist - it would be a vast expense and would make their whole model unviable.

It comes down to whether you believe the existence of such sites is worth sacrificing in order to help rights holders enforce their rights. I do not.

StoutFiles




msg:4074976
 3:51 pm on Feb 5, 2010 (gmt 0)

It comes down to whether you believe the existence of such sites is worth sacrificing in order to help rights holders enforce their rights. I do not.


Most people believe that copyright holders should sacrifice their rights for users enjoyment. YouTube and similar sites probably shouldn't exist.

edacsac




msg:4074984
 4:08 pm on Feb 5, 2010 (gmt 0)

Most people believe that copyright holders should sacrifice their rights for users enjoyment. YouTube and similar sites probably shouldn't exist.


I agree. Producing quality media is not free. Youtube can exist for the amatures, folks making videos on their cell phones or officially licensed channels. Copyright is copyright and folks that put large amounts of effort and resources into something should be protected when their work gets distributed on sites like youtube without following any of the owners wishes granted to them by copyright protection.

ytswy




msg:4074992
 4:22 pm on Feb 5, 2010 (gmt 0)

Youtube can exist for the amatures, folks making videos on their cell phones or officially licensed channels.


This is my point. I simply don't see how YouTube can exist if they have the burden of policing their sites and the liability if they fail to do so. If there is a workable solution to that (not just for YouTube, but for any similar site) I'd change my opinion.

edacsac




msg:4074995
 4:29 pm on Feb 5, 2010 (gmt 0)

It is quite a catch 22, isn't it. But then google (and many other web entities) build their business model on other peoples content and hard work.

As a photographer and a musician, I'd like to see youtube enforce copyright. As a web surfer looking for a cool song I just heard, it's nice to type in a few words and pull up the video so I can hear it again without having to buy it before I'm sure it's the song I'm looking for.

If sites like youtube did support every copyright, there would be little free content and pay or subscription systems of some sort would have to be put in place on a micro payment scale. I'm good with that from a background as a content creator, but most web surfers that contribute little to nothing feel they are entitled to free media, because they've already been consuming it for free for so long.

[edited by: edacsac at 4:36 pm (utc) on Feb 5, 2010]

Demaestro




msg:4074998
 4:33 pm on Feb 5, 2010 (gmt 0)


Youtube is one big copyright infringement, at least Italy sees it for what it is.


Really? That is a sad cynical way of thinking of it. I subscribe to dozens of channels and all of them are original unique content. I love all them which is why I subscribed.

I guess if the only reason you go to YouTube is to find tv shows and sports highlights then you might think that way.

I think the amount of unique original content on Youtube is amazing, magic shows, stand-up routines, cooking shows, photoshop tutorials, musical performances, so many great things on there.

YouTube and similar sites probably shouldn't exist.


Why because some people break the rules?

By the same mentality, we shouldn't have cars because people speed and kill people, sure the people who build roads tell the people who use them to obey the law, sure they try to enforce it but we all know you can't catch them all and when you do catch 1 speeder there is another one is pulling out of a garage. They can't seem to enforce it so we just shouldn't have cars or roads.

The fact is there will always be rule breakers, but to put the onus to stop all offenders on the people trying to do something worth while, like building roads, or great websites, will only stop them from doing worth while things, it won't stop people from rule breaking.

If I build a park and someone gets stabbed there am I responsible? If I own a mall and a child gets kidnapped from the food court is it my responsibility? Owners have a responsibility to make an effort to make places they run safe, but you can't hold them accountable for everything that happens unless they are negligent in their behavior.

VCR's allow copyright infringement, should we fine the creators? Should we not have VCRs? Should a VCR be made to know when it is allowed to record something and when it isn't?

Let's get real here. This kind of hyper punishing will only stifle creativity and removes any incentive to do new things and progress. Youtube has a right to exist, it has great reason to exist and punishing the people who run it and those who use it for it's intended purpose is silly.

ytswy




msg:4075004
 4:48 pm on Feb 5, 2010 (gmt 0)

Just to clarify edacsac, I don't support YouTube hosting any content that it doesn't have a licence for, and if possible any and all such content should be taken down.

All I'm saying is that the current situation, where the site is only liable if they fail to respond to a take-down notice is the best one, although I completely understand why someone who makes their living from selling access to their copyrighted material doesn't like it.

Don't just think of the work involved for a YouTube like site to police themselves, think of the massive insurance premium that any user-generated content start-up would have to pay before they could even launch. As for ISPs themselves being liable....

edacsac




msg:4075016
 5:19 pm on Feb 5, 2010 (gmt 0)

Just to clarify edacsac...


I understand where your coming from. My reply here echos sentiment from the various other threads regarding copyright issues as well. I think about this subject a lot lately. I wish someone could come up with a way to make it fair for everyone, put the liability on the actual infringers, while still letting the market have a say on what media is worth.

Demaestro




msg:4075033
 6:08 pm on Feb 5, 2010 (gmt 0)

I wish someone could come up with a way to make it fair for everyone, put the liability on the actual infringers, while still letting the market have a say on what media is worth.


That pretty much sums up the current system.

Think of your favorite site: WebmasterWorld... now if some dummy posts a news article word for word on here should WebmasterWorld be fined? I say no, WebmasterWorld will remove the post when it is discovered by them but the copyright holder of the original article shouldn't be able to hold WebmasterWorld responsible. Same thing with Youtube and videos.

StoutFiles




msg:4075083
 7:17 pm on Feb 5, 2010 (gmt 0)

I guess if the only reason you go to YouTube is to find tv shows and sports highlights then you might think that way.

I think the amount of unique original content on Youtube is amazing, magic shows, stand-up routines, cooking shows, photoshop tutorials, musical performances, so many great things on there.


So the original content that you hunt for allows us to ignore the tons of illegal content? Of course it has some original content, but the vast majority isn't. Just the fact that people can scrape music off of Youtube makes it one of the largest illegal file sharing sites on the web. But that's ok because you saw some original magic tricks?


VCR's allow copyright infringement, should we fine the creators? Should we not have VCRs? Should a VCR be made to know when it is allowed to record something and when it isn't?


Only if I take the recordings and put them up on the web for everyone to view. The law says you're allowed to record what you pay for, but the law does not defend making copies and sharing.


If I build a park and someone gets stabbed there am I responsible?


Actually...possibly. People can sue for just about anything, for example, letting someone sneak a knife into your park because of lackluster security.

But I'll ignore that and talk about what you were getting at. The person who does the stabbing SHOULD be responsible, just like everyone who uploads content SHOULD be responsible. Currently, that idea just doesn't work...there are no internet police, different countries have different rules, etc. Until the internet can be policed (it will one day) sites that just let people upload illegal content (files) and reap the benefits should not be operating, or should change their business model.

I love Youtube. I take music/videos from it all the time and I'd be sad to see it go. That doesn't change the fact that it's horribly illegal, and is only currently running because the big bad Google owns it.

Demaestro




msg:4075120
 8:16 pm on Feb 5, 2010 (gmt 0)

So the original content that you hunt for allows us to ignore the tons of illegal content?


I don't hunt for it, look at the Most Viewed list... tell me what percent violates someone's copyright and what percent is original content created for YouTube? you would have to hunt for movies and tv shows... not original content. Do you even go on YouTube? Original content is everywhere.

Of course it has some original content, but the vast majority isn't.


No... This is wrong. Either cite a source that shows this to be true or don't repeat it again.

I love Youtube. That doesn't change the fact that it's horribly illegal, and is only currently running because the big bad Google owns it


Again, pure speculation. How is it illegal? what laws, specifically has it broken? And not your interpretation of the laws or what you think should be a law, but cite an actual law.

YouTube was around before Google bought it, so how come it wasn't shut down then? There are tons of other sites that are the same as YouTube... they aren't owned by Google... many of them don't even care about copyright infringement.... if what you are saying is true then they should have been shut down by now because they aren't owned by Google and yet there they are.

I guess you are wrong that the reason it is up is they are owned by Google. I think what is more likely is you hate them because they are owned by Google.

purplecape




msg:4075125
 8:19 pm on Feb 5, 2010 (gmt 0)

I think what is more likely is you hate them because they are owned by Google.


I don't understand how you get there from where you were.

StoutFiles




msg:4075144
 8:45 pm on Feb 5, 2010 (gmt 0)

you would have to hunt for movies and tv shows... not original content.


Define hunt. I type in a band name or a song and I get their song covered or the original song. I type in a TV show or movie and can watch the best clips from it. Hunting is hard! I must be the only one who is doing this!

No... This is wrong. Either cite a source that shows this to be true or don't repeat it again.


It's common sense. You do know even when covering a song the band should receive royalties? Try to think of all the videos with "original" content that have copyrighted music in them. All the videos with music playing in the background, all the song covers, all the tv clips, all the movie clips...

I'm comparing this content to content people want to see. If I uploaded a video of myself picking my nose in complete musical silence, are you going to consider that good quality content. That's a lot of YouTube if you "hunt" for it. When comparing uncopyrighted, original content to copyrighted content, you would find that the majority is copyrighted in someway.

I'm not performing an audit for you or looking up laws for you, otherwise Google wouldn't be getting sued by Viacom and many others. It's common sense but because of the legal mess that the internet is, rarely does anything get accomplished. The fact that torrent sites are still around and in such huge quantity should say something.

It'd be nice if I could open up my own entertainment business somewhere. People would bring in music and videos and I could have copies made by the millions. Then I'd give them all out for free and make money with company sponsorships. If a TV or music company came whining to me about giving away their content for free, I would say "Ok, ill remove it!" and I would! No problem! The next person that walked in would then give me the music and videos that were previously removed. Phew! This cycle could continue forever until I'm very rich! Who cares about the big businesses, I'm entertaining people.

YouTube was around before Google bought it, so how come it wasn't shut down then?


The big companies suing started after Google had purchased it. I don't know if the much smaller run YouTube could have survived a legal onslaught like Google can. Probably not. Also, Google is actually losing money on YouTube. This is beside the point, but without a bigger company's purchase YouTube would likely have folded in bankruptcy anyways.

I guess you are wrong that the reason it is up is they are owned by Google. I think what is more likely is you hate them because they are owned by Google.


I'm quite right actually. And I don't hate Google, I'm just amazed what they can get away with. Usually the targeted sites like Napster, PirateBay, Seeqpod...they all get shutdown or changed but not YouTube, and the reason is Google.

Demaestro




msg:4075158
 9:18 pm on Feb 5, 2010 (gmt 0)

Stout,

I guess we just look at this differently. I honestly never search for movies or TV shows on Youtube. I think the people viewing violating content are as bad as the people posting it.

I do know that covering a song means the band should receive royalties, I do know that if you use the entire track of a song as the background music that it is a copyright infringement.

I still don't think that the majority of the content on Youtube is violating someone's copyright. I know you "feel" that way, but you shouldn't say it like it is a fact without some facts to back it up.

I only asked for a law that they are breaking because you accused them of breaking the law. Yes they have been sued by Viacom, but Viacom lost, so obviously YouTube was in the legal right in that case. I just think if you are going to make assertions like YouTube breaks the law and YouTube has more violating content then not you should come armed with some sort of supporting evidence.

You are right that companies starting suing when Google bought them... do you understand why? Deep pockets bring lawsuits... no one was suing when they thought there was no money to gain, but that changed when Google stepped in. It didn't make what they were doing more or less allowed because Google suddenly bought them.

Napster, PirateBay, Seeqpod had no interest in removing offending content. They had no processes for copyright holders to make claims. In fact they insulted people for complaining. That is the difference. Youtube is acting within the laws set out.. those sites aren't.. that is the difference, not that Google owns YouTube.

If you are right that YouTube is only around because they are owned by Google can you explain why similar sites not owned by Google, who have as much if not more offending content and who don't act as quickly as YouTube when a take down notice is issued are still around?

Leosghost




msg:4075172
 10:10 pm on Feb 5, 2010 (gmt 0)

Using more than 4 bars of a piece of music is infringement ..( or requires a license ) or prior permission in writing from the composers or their legal agents and payment of royalties to the composer or their legal agents ) which is why TV ads tend to use 3 and a half bars..to avoid paying or asking..

And why the CSI series producers obtained permission from and paid The Who ..before using "wont get fooled again" ..same laws apply to using more than 4 bars of music to "soundtrack" your baby's or your cat's antics and uploading it to Youtube ..and Youtube is required to have sought the same permissions because they are the "broadcaster/distributor" ..whether they make any money from what they distribute ..or whether one approves or disapproves of Youtube ..is immaterial to the law .

moTi




msg:4075184
 10:28 pm on Feb 5, 2010 (gmt 0)

let's be honest, youtube is almost exclusively used for consuming copyrighted content in one way or another. by now especially interesting as source for converting sound files.

got a youtube to mp3 converter? youtube is your new napster.

if your country is locked out of some of the material, no problem so far: just tunnel your ip.

i'd say: enjoy it while it lasts. and meanwhile it's astonishing just for how long it is still lasting - must be the google effect.

StoutFiles




msg:4075448
 3:43 pm on Feb 6, 2010 (gmt 0)

If you are right that YouTube is only around because they are owned by Google can you explain why similar sites not owned by Google, who have as much if not more offending content and who don't act as quickly as YouTube when a take down notice is issued are still around?


I can only assume legal teams don't have the time and energy to go after every site so they choose the sites affecting the most people (and like you said, the biggest possible payday).

thecoalman




msg:4075697
 6:25 am on Feb 7, 2010 (gmt 0)

I think sites should be responsible for copyright infringement, even if the offending items are uploaded by users (they could always moderate them).


Disagree and that would have tremendous impact on the internet as we know it. Should WW be held responsible if I copy and paste an entire news article into this post?

That's what you're suggesting and with the amount of content being uploaded whether it's text, audio or video most sites would never be able to handle the volume. Not only that but you're now putting the site owner in the position of having to judge whether something falls under fair use which is not clearly defined in copyright law.

StoutFiles




msg:4075722
 8:49 am on Feb 7, 2010 (gmt 0)

That's what you're suggesting and with the amount of content being uploaded whether it's text, audio or video most sites would never be able to handle the volume.


High traffic volume isn't a valid excuse...it's like a football stadium employing one security guard to check for bombs and since he can't check everyone they let everyone in unchecked.

That said, the main culprit is files. Files should always be checked unless blame can be put on the person uploading the file if problems arise with the file.

thecoalman




msg:4076250
 10:49 am on Feb 8, 2010 (gmt 0)

There's more to it than just the volume. You had a lengthy post on page one of this thread, was it cut and pasted from some obscure source with a copyright by another author?

See the can of worms you're opening? Obviously a lot of copyrighted content can easily be spotted but obscure content has just as much protection and would be impossible to moderate out.

poppyrich




msg:4077948
 9:26 pm on Feb 10, 2010 (gmt 0)

In Criminal law, the United States justice system was crafted with the presumption that it's better to have a multitude of guilty people go free than to have even one single innocent person go to jail.
And this, of course, involves more than money - we're talking about the taking away of everything - your possessions, your family, and in many states, we know to a statistical certainty that innocent people have had their lives taken from them, too.

I watched three short videos on YouTube today and got valuable information that helps me in my work. It was posted by the creators as is their right and viewed by me as is my right.

Digital distribution of information is, today and increasingly in the future, an indispensable part of our world.

In the same spirit as exists in Criminal Law, in regards to Intellectual Property Law - where it is simply money that's involved - I believe that it's better for a multitude of creators to go uncompensated than for a single creator of free content to be denied an audience or a single individual be denied the ability to consume information that it is their right to consume by law.
If that enables "piracy", so be it. If content creators go bankrupt, so be it.
As a citizen, that's my choice. I'll take that risk.

Demaestro




msg:4077974
 10:08 pm on Feb 10, 2010 (gmt 0)

Using more than 4 bars of a piece of music is infringement


Well there are some fair use cases where this wouldn't be true.

High traffic volume isn't a valid excuse.. it's like a football stadium employing one security guard to check for bombs and since he can't check everyone they let everyone in unchecked.


No it wouldn't be... if the people running stadium events hired 1 person for security and something bad happened they would be negligent and held responsible.

The fact is the law is laid out, and Youtube follows that law.

Volume isn't an excuse it is a legitimate reason. Google has millions of pages added to it's index every day.. how would you suggest they moderate each one of those pages for content that violates someone else's copyright? It just isn't feasible or even humanly possible, and to suggest that they do this is ridiculous and if enforced would shut down every major and minor search engines.

Not to mention all these sites and many smaller ones like them would have to shut down.

Google, MSN, Yahoo, Bing, Youtube, Digg, Stumble, Twitter, Facebook, slashdot, WebmasterWorld and on and on and on.... every site with a forum would have to incur the expenses of hiring someone to manually review every post, page, video, song against every known article, video, song to make sure it didn't violate.... it would take days and days just to do 1 post.

Poppy... very well put

Leosghost




msg:4077996
 10:24 pm on Feb 10, 2010 (gmt 0)


Well there are some fair use cases where this wouldn't be true.

Review and parody ..

I'll grant you ..( declare myself a fan of "weird al" :)) ..

Others ?

I'll bite :)

Demaestro




msg:4078002
 10:30 pm on Feb 10, 2010 (gmt 0)

Leo... you may get away with an "For educational purposes" but that doesn't really apply to republishing unless you copied sheet music to distribute in class.

This 31 message thread spans 2 pages: 31 ( [1] 2 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / WebmasterWorld / Content, Writing and Copyright
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved