Forum Moderators: martinibuster
[copyright.gov...]
Here's a sample of operative language from the proposed legislation:
The Inducing Infringements Act would add a new subsection (g) to Section 501 of the Copyright Act. . .The new subsection would create a new species of copyright liability by making clear that anyone who "intentionally induces any violation of subsection (a) shall be liable as an infringer." In other words, a person who "intentionally induces" infringement would be liable as if he or she committed the infringement. The bill defines "intentionally induces" as meaning:. . . intentionally aids, abets, induces, or procures, and intent may be shown by acts from which a reasonable person would find intent to induce infringement based upon all relevant information about such acts then reasonably available to the actor, including whether the activity relies on infringement for its commercial viability.
Since ContextCorp is a leader in the field of contextual advertising I'm using ContextCorp as a reference point in my hypothetical analysis.
Induce? Are content thieves induced to thievery by the promise of contextual ad payments? ContextCorp does not "intentionally induce" infringement BUT "intent" is a fact issue for a jury (reasonable person) to infer. A jury would reflect upon: 1) How vigorous is ContextCorp (or any other company running such a program, including new players to emerge) in policing copyright infringement? 2) Does ContextCorp prescreen its applicants to ascertain if they have a history of copyright abuse? 3) Does ContextCorp proactively monitor current AdPush participants or does it passively wait for a DMCA report? 4) What volume of AdPush revenue can be traced to sites that scrape their 'content' from other sites?
Click fraud is not the only problem with contextual advertising. Content theft is a kindred 'fraud' - and this fraud will likely continue to grow - so long as there is a buck to me made with contextual advertising. Contextual advertising is ripe for the picking by fraudsters. The 'take all comers' approach is likely going to have to change: Prescreen publishers, domain bind feeds only to domains the publisher submits, etc.
Just like the redistribution of music on peer-to-peer networks deprives a music composer of their fair due the illicit redistribution of creative written content threatens the author. Now, content thieves search for content to steal by using search engines, not peer-to-peer software/servers, but if content has value that can be exploited how far away are we from the day when new systems will be created for redistributing 'content by title or subject'?
Are we tip-toeing down this path with RSS feeds? XML feeds?
I see the mess getting worse before it gets better.
Contextual advertising networks beware. Choose your members wisely and plan ahead.
Just a thought. Please prove the analysis wrong on all counts.
[edited by: Webwork at 5:46 pm (utc) on Dec. 21, 2004]
AdSense doesn't provide the means, as such networks do. It just provides the motive. That's different, IMHO.
But thank you for an interesting post!
>> Induce? Are content thieves induced to thievery by the promise of contextual ad payments?
Not wishing to pre-empt the jury verdict but isn't it a case that provided it is covered in the TOS it is not Google's responsibility to monitor publisher infringements? If it were Google's responsibility every page that appears in SERPS should be similarly vetted because, it could be argued, each has the potential to generate revenue for the owner.
We've often discussed the extent to which content fraud has become a problem. So far it does not appear that Google makes a clear distinction between content scrappers and directories and, in fact, there is no evidence to suggest they have a SERPS penalty for the content theft that is scraping. In fact the algo may be tweaked in the scrapers' favour. Google may well have to decide on a definition of scraping at some point - and ban it. If not for copyright law reasons, at least for the credibility of their advertising programs.
[edited by: Macro at 5:53 pm (utc) on Dec. 21, 2004]
Haven't you heard? Peer-to-peer networks don't control the content pushed through their systems, they just facilitate the exchange AND they assume people will use their system to legally exchange "public domain" music, music they personally authored and wish to distribute, etc.
I listened to a program about file sharing and when I heard this argument (their principal defense I believe) I thought the defensive was taking wishful thinking or a belief in public gullibility to a whole new level.
...that the INTENTION of the passage cited ...
The unintended consequences might be worth considering.
It would seem that if you gave someone an Ipod as a gift, you would be liable for all time if that person used it to listen to infringing material.
Could the Act be extended? Is it potentially applicable as written to contextual advertising networks where revenue is generated from ads being placed on websites that might be nothing more than stolen material? Is the logic of the Act extensible?
The music industry has a powerful lobby in Washington. What about the magazine or newspaper or other publishers? Won't they be victimized by mass copyright infringement but in a different way? How will this dark art - of taking and redistributing written contnet - advance? Such dark arts aren't practiced without financial incentive. Who is providing the incentive? The contextual advertisers? Others?
Legislatures are groping for ways to protect the interests of publishers. The cited act is one example. Due to repid changes in technology and methodology legislatures look to draft laws that aren't too specific for fear that technology might advance and make the verbiage of the law useless. Therefore, write in broad generalities. That creates problems. (Which you all blame on lawyers, right? ;0) )
I've seen this coming for several years. Your friendly senator did not grow up online. Look for things to be a bit messy for awhile as everyone gropes to understand what it happening and how to regulate it.
which you all blame on lawyers, right? ;0)LOL
Not always. Some of the burden may lie with folks that don't prod legislators and government agencies to establish defensible laws, rules and regulations.
But that may be another thread........ :)
IF this language gets written into law as is, it's possible to imagine it being used against Google, but I would expect it would mostly be used against its intended targets.
But who knows?
