Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

TV Networks Don't Want DMCA Protection For YouTube

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the well-of-course-they-don't dept.

sburch79 writes "A brief filed in the Viacom v. Google case asserts that the DMCA Safe Harbor provisions were never meant to apply to sites like YouTube. It also goes on to say the if safe harbor were given to these sites, it would put too big a burden on networks to police their own material."

10 of 197 comments (clear)

  1. tough shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    that's what you get for lobbying for such vague legislation then.

  2. Boo Hoo by whisper_jeff · · Score: 5, Insightful

    My sympathy for major media companies being forced to do some work for their money is pretty much non-existent. Welcome to the real world with the rest of us. Enjoy your stay. Get to work.

    1. Re:Boo Hoo by dgatwood · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Agreed. Hear that sound? That's the sound of the world's tiniest violin playing the saddest song in the world.

      Sorry, Hollywood, but YouTube is precisely the kind of site that safe harbor exemptions are for. It is an ISP whose material is provided exclusively by its users. What, you thought that somehow a site shouldn't count because it is getting too big for you to bully? Waaaah. Cry me a freaking river.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    2. Re:Boo Hoo by DavidTC · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Cry me a freaking river.

      Especially as they were forced to make the 'safe harbor' provision in the DMCA to be allowed some of the more egregious stuff.

      'Safe harbor' may seem to be fair and sane to most people, but it's important to note it's not particularly supposed to be fair, it's actually intended to be rather lax. It's a compromise reached to allow tougher laws against people who knowingly facilitate the distribution of copyrighted material.

      And now they're bitching and whining about it, complaining it is doing exactly what it was intended to do...not require companies to police their customers.

      So, of course, now they want to use the harsher laws that they only have because of 'safe harbor' to go after YouTube.

      We might all whine about companies issuing DMCA takedown notices, but at least those are under the threat of perjury and are actual filed legal documents. Too many people have forgotten about the universe before that, when companies would call other companies and have some non-lawyer hint heavily about lawsuits and have them remove content that they had no legal ability to object to or sue over, but the host company didn't want to risk it.

      I am, of course, in favor of actually filing some perjury charges here and there over obviously bogus takedown notices, but even without that, the system is still better, both for hosting companies and end users. So of course content providers object to it.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  3. With great power comes great responsibility by dacarr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Part of copyright is that one should be watching out for their own material, and have any documentation to back it up. While many people do so as a courtesy, it is generally not the responsibility of somebody else to make sure that material they are not responsible for does not wind up in places it doesn't belong.

    --
    This sig no verb.
    1. Re:With great power comes great responsibility by AndersOSU · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think it's also worth noting that copyright isn't like trademark. You don't have to enforce it to maintain it. So ... if there's little commercial value in yanking Hitler parodies off You Tube, there's no reason to continue to do so.

  4. Re:Throw em a bone by Captain+Spam · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Maybe youtube should try to police the material for a few days as a demonstration of how ridiculous such an attempt would be.

    What human beings think when they see this:

    1. Request is made for YouTube to police everything.
    2. YouTube grudgingly complies.
    3. Obvious difficulties are revealed.
    4. YouTube cannot keep up.
    5. People see and realize the problems, reconsider.

    What executives think when they see this:

    1. Request is made for YouTube to police everything.
    2. YouTube grudgingly complies.
    3. Someone else is doing the work for them; delegation successful, YouTube is now entirely responsible, this is no longer the concern of those requesting it.
    4. Any future difficulties in this are obviously failures on YouTube's fault. Report as such.
    5. Keep going until YouTube is dead; this is called "beating the competition". Declare victory.

    --
    Demanding constant attention will only lead to attention.
  5. fourth branch by orgelspieler · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Remember from your social studies classes in elementary school, there are four branches of government:
    • Executive - Enforces the law
    • Judicial - Interprets the law
    • Legislative - Votes on the law
    • Corporate - Writes the law, re-interprets the law, and helps enforce the law

    Anybody who taught you otherwise hadn't read through the fine print in the EULA at the end of the Constitution. It's all right there.

  6. Fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The viewers are that product

    Fixed that for you.

  7. Too big a burden??? by e3m4n · · Score: 5, Insightful

    it would put too big a burden on networks to police their own material.

    awww.. poor fucking babies. So instead its MY responsibility as an ISP to police YOUR fucking material? Who the fuck at your network do I send my invoices for my labor to do your fucking job for you? Either police your shit or dont prosecute for infringement. Anywhere else in society the financially harmed has to take civil suit action against those that do the harm for a tort claim