Slashdot Mirror
TV Networks Don't Want DMCA Protection For YouTube
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."
that's what you get for lobbying for such vague legislation then.
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.
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.
Hahahahahahahahaha *gasp* I just read the hahahahahahah TFA hahahhahaha *gasp* So there's this lawyer right hahahahahahah, and he argues hahahahahahahhahahahahahah *gasp* that the law should be enforced according to the spirit of the law, instead of the exact word! hahahahahahahhahahaha!
GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
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.
Big Media translated: "waaah we're too lazy to do our own work so we want the government to shut down Youtube."
Response of customers: "I've had it up to here with DRM, 'copy protection', and all the other anti-consumer shit. Big Media can go fuck themselves."
In addition: most of the stuff I've seen on Youtube should be covered under Fair Use, especially parodies. So double-fuck-you to the MafiAA.
Big media response to the viewers: "See, piracy is affecting out business".
Btw - viewers are very rarely "customers". Certainly for TV programming they are not, the advertisers are.
The customers are those who pay money to receive a product or service. The viewers are consumers.
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.
The viewers are that product
Fixed that for you.
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
YouTube hosts content posted by third parties which it makes available to others without prior review. It is exactly the kind of situation the DMCA's safe harbor provisions are meant to address.
Fuck you Viacom for expecting to reap the benefits of copyright law while rejecting those aspects of it you dislike.
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
The summary and the article linked within are (purposely) doing a poor job of representing the actual position of the attorneys. I wasn't comfortable thinking they were that blatantly stupid and greed, and so dug a little deeper:
(From http://copyrightsandcampaigns.blogspot.com/2010/05/viacoms-friends-lend-support-in-youtube.html)
Viacom's friends lend support in YouTube case
Two groups supporting major copyright owners have filed amicus briefs in support of Viacom in its copyright suit against Google and YouTube.
The first, filed on behalf of a coalition including ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, Disney, NBC Universal, Warner Bros., and others, makes three main points:
- Congress enacted the DMCA to combat -- not protect -- copyright infringement;
- The DMCA Section 512(c) safe harbor does not provide a defense to inducement liability;
and
- Section 512(c)(1)(B)'s language denying the safe harbor where a site derives "a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity, in a case in which the service
provider has the right and ability to control such activity," should be interpreted consistent with the "right and ability to control" standard from common law vicarious liability.
The second, from the free market-oriented Washington
Legal Foundation, focuses on the legislative history and purpose of the DMCA's safe harbors, arguing that the law mandates a "shared responsibility" among copyright owners and online service providers in addressing infringement, and does not relieve sites like YouTube of all obligations to fight illegal use of others' works, especially while profiting from it.
So their argument goes a little deeper than 'waaaaaaaa' as some of my fellow slashdotters have summarized it.
Against the actual argument, however, I think YouTube's most logical response would be to stop policing the content themselves at all. The position here seems to be that YouTube is a facilitator by not completely blocking copywritten content. A fair response would be for YouTube to step out of that role and give the content providers the power to do this directly. Vis-a-vi, allow the big media companies to sue those providers directly. By the way, if you haven't noticed, the providers are the individuals making content and posting it to YouTube... you know, the end users.
Re-posting because I forgot to log in and I didn't want to say this as AC:
The record industry and the film industry are two sides of the same coin - hell, in many cases they're different arms of the same company. What we see now with the MPAA is an almost exact action-replay of what we've seen with the RIAA over the last 10 years.
The first thing the record industry did was ignore the existence of the Internet, MP3s and other such things. Then came Napster and suddenly ignoring it wasn't an option.
The second thing the record industry did was sue Napster into the ground and attempt to force ISPs to block file sharing (they're still doing this to a certain extent, though I'm not sure how much is being driven by the MPAA and how much is being driven by the RIAA these days).
Next up, we've got "refuse to license songs for distribution over the Internet, put draconian DRM on CDs which doesn't really achieve the desired aim and just hacks off your customers". Erm... anyone see any parallels with DVDs and BluRay?
After that, we had "License songs on condition that DRM is used to 'protect' them". iTunes used to apply DRM, and there didn't used to be any such thing as a company selling plain unencumbered MP3s unless you count dubious Russian site allofmp3.com. I would say we're somewhere between this and the "refuse to license for Internet distribution" stage for movies and TV shows.
Today we have "License songs without the DRM conditions", and several companies are selling plain unencumbered MP3s quite legitimately without having to set up shop in some part of the world where copyright is considered broadly optional. Despite all the screams of how MP3s would kill the music industry, I know of no major record label which has gone out of business, and alas it seems we still have squeaky-clean teenage Britney Fucking Spears (seriously, "Fucking"'s her middle name) clones churning out dross. I don't think we've entirely moved on from the record-exec induced hysteria, but for the most part it seems that we can at least have a sensible adult discussion as to how the Internet can be used to help a band, which is more than we could 10 years ago.
My prediction is that in 5 years time, the movie industry will have gone in much the same direction, and in 10 years time most of us will have forgotten all of this. Until the next thing that forces them to re-think their business comes up.
gah, let me try again:
cry me a river
build me a bridge shore to shore
and get over it
Google is more than willing to share its product (viewers' attention) with copyright owners. All the copyright owner has to do is sign up for Content ID, submit samples of works that it controls, and set the Content ID settings to "monetize".