At Universal's Request, YouTube Yanks News Podcast Over Music Snippet

Snaller writes "Tech News Today does what the name says — it's a podcast reporting on Tech news, Monday to Friday. They, like Slashdot, reported on the Megaupload vs. Universal copyright dispute. But during their coverage, they played a snippet of the music video and immediately Universal Music Group had the news podcast yanked from YouTube. Tech News Today has outlets other than YouTube, but should a music company have the right to have a news podcast removed on copyright grounds, when it's not even clear that said company has had any copyrights violated?"

Comments

And this is why SOPA is so terrifying

[sandytaru]

Shoot first, ask questions never, over things that are arguably as Fair Use as it gets. It will only get worse from here.

Re:And this is why SOPA is so terrifying

[VanGarrett]

Indeed, because I know so many people that use podcasts on YouTube as alternatives to buying CDs. Doesn't everyone?

Re:And this is why SOPA is so terrifying

[honestmonkey]

That snippet was just the piece I needed to complete the song! I've put it together from a lot of other "fair use" sources and almost had the whole thing. But I missed the podcast! And I almost had the song FOR FREE! Damn UMG, damn them all to hell!

Re:And this is why SOPA is so terrifying

[L4t3r4lu5]

Find the lyrics, sing them yourself, and auto-tune it.

It's what Big Media is doing nowadays anyway.

Re:And this is why SOPA is so terrifying

[Hatta]

My girlfriend's daughter does. She's 10. She wouldn't know what to do if I bought her a CD. It complicates gift giving.

Re:And this is why SOPA is so terrifying

[Toonol]

It is legal to listen to CDs off youtube. It isn't legal to put CDs on youtube. There are fair use exceptions, which playing a snippet in a news story is obviously one of. However, posting a full song online for others to download is illegal, and this is pretty settled law. It is less settled when the music is a minor part of another, transformative, use.

Re:And this is why SOPA is so terrifying

[Hatta]

Why would she want to rip a CD? Youtube is the source of everthing good as far as she's concerned. CDs are for old fuddies like me.

Re:And this is why SOPA is so terrifying

[Missing.Matter]

They'll still call that copyright infringement.At least according to youtube it is: http://www.youtube.com/account_monetization

Examples of videos that are NOT eligible: You are only singing words of your favorite copyrighted song

Re:And this is why SOPA is so terrifying

[meerling]

Don't forget that UMG (Universal Music Group) doesn't even have the copyright for this song in the first place. It was a commission promo piece that was done for, and paid for by Megaupload for their purposes. UMG was never even part of the deal, much less a copyright owner of it. It doesn't even use UMG samples in the music. So what UMG is doing, is claiming copyrights they do NOT have to block the promotional use of another company. This is ILLEGAL.
As to a news report using a clip, that has been specifically listed as allowed and fair use in the laws, so is explicitly legal.

ianal (obviously)

And if anyone actually wants to see/hear the song, go to megaupload.com, they have it posted.

Re:And this is why SOPA is so terrifying

[Anonymous Coward]

Shoot first, ask questions never...

This former Marine is getting closer and closer to doing just that.

                    Dear rich people who own the senate,

                                Lots of poor people have lots of guns. More than the military does. Knock off the bullshit, please.

                    Love,
                    Me

Re:And this is why SOPA is so terrifying

[FatdogHaiku]

Mouth the words, and then closed caption the lyrics.

Do it in sign language and substitute a middle finger for all punctuation...

Re:And this is why SOPA is so terrifying

[EdIII]

Posting a full song online is not illegal. Illegal specifically means against the law. They are trying to change and pervert the law all the time, so who really knows when even thinking about a song without authorization is actually against a law, but today posting a song is not illegal.

Copyright law structures the copyright and enumerates and defines the rights (legal entitlements). If you have violated copyright law, which meets the definition of illegal, it is because you have improperly constructed a copyright or some other equivalent.

Posting of the song is infringement of a copyright, not a law, which is very different in several important ways.

The prevalence of the terms illegal, theft, stealing, etc. in regards to copyright is merely a disingenuous attempt to characterize what is essentially a civil dispute over contractual violations in a legal agreement constructed through copyright law.

Since it requires too much work, and money, to take actual responsibility of your legal rights, there has been a movement to appropriate authority that was usually reserved for criminal acts and actual crime and abrogate any legal entitlements the consumer thought they (quite reasonably) had.

In addition to the propaganda campaign that includes the redefining and perversion of the words theft, steal, illegal, copyright, fair use, etc. Big Content has actively engaged in activities that are unlawful, unethical, and an effective bypass and nullification of the Judicial system. After all, participating in the Judicial system costs real money. Same exact principle behind deeds of trust for real estate, which is excusing yourself from any meaningful participation in the Judicial system and eliminating any chance of the other party seeking remediation through law.

While the emergence of digital technologies and communications, that were once the realm of Sci-Fi, has utterly destroyed the barrier to entry for copyright infringement, that does not justify the serious harm against society.

The mere fact that a large corporation can act as judge, jury, and executioner against 3rd parties with no legal or contractual basis of any kind, without consequence, and without regulation, is evidence that the system is broken.

So with respect, and I do not apologize for being pedantic, it is not illegal. It is infringing.

Any case of infringement, especially these ones, are within the jurisdiction of the courts and must involve due process.

Due process is the bane of Big Content. The reason should be obvious. If they had to actually explain and justify their actions... they would lose. They can't explain why if a customer paid them money they should not be able to enjoy the work in any form they want and back it up. They can't explain why using portions of the copyrighted work for educational and journalistic purposes should be barred, or how it even harms them.

They don't want to explain or justify anything. Just control it without opposition at any cost. Society be damned. After all, they need to afford those hookers, blow, and expensive toys some how.

Punish unjust copyright claims

[ZorroXXX]

The only way to make these kinds of problems go away is to make it illegal and punishable to claim copyright on something that you do not own the copyright for.

Re:Punish unjust copyright claims

[jythie]

*nods* that is the major flaw.. there are no consequences for fraudulent takedowns.

Re:Punish unjust copyright claims

[BigSlowTarget]

Civil: Online Policy Group v. Diebold, Incorporated - Diebold sued for false DMCA and paid $125k.

Even if it were more possible, do you really think anyone would criminally prosecute a large company for just a false DMCA? Prosecutors gain nothing from that and just waste their resources for a minor offense against a company's major legal team. The end result would just end up being angering potential donors to political campaigns except when those donors encouraged prosecution of small copyright holders too poor to afford good lawyers.

Re:Punish unjust copyright claims

[Penguinisto]

Personally, I'd like to see the DMCA amended to add one thing:

"If the claimed infringed work is owned by an incorporated entity, claimant shall post a bond equal to at least 1% of the annual income of that corporation for each claim, and if the claim is found to be false, claimant shall forfeit that bond to the person or entity being claimed against." ...or something similar (and a lot more air-tight).

Make 'em put their money where their DMCA claim is.

Re:Punish unjust copyright claims

[elfprince13]

It already is. Under OCILLA/DMCA 512, UMG's lawyers have probably just perjured themselves. The trick is making it stick.

Re:Punish unjust copyright claims

[SuricouRaven]

Fair use is a defence: The burden is on the defendant to prove fair use.

Re:Punish unjust copyright claims

[heathen_01]

Why the fuck do you allow corporates to donate to political parties?

Re:Punish unjust copyright claims

[SuricouRaven]

It's disputed. The artists in the video are contracted to Universial. The dispute appears to be over a standard clause in recording contracts that transfers copyright for everything the artist produces to the label for the term of the contract. It's intended to prevent another label poaching artists after they become famous.

Re:Punish unjust copyright claims

[malilo]

Well "we" didn't allow it, the assholes on the supreme court did. Unfortunate, to say the least.

Re:Punish unjust copyright claims

[zzatz]

No, Universal does not have copyright to the music involved, which was what made it newsworthy.

Re:Punish unjust copyright claims

[Lumpy]

Because rich assholes like to support other rich assholes at the cost of freedom for the poor schleps.

It's been this way for centuries here.

Re:Punish unjust copyright claims

[David Chappell]

In this case, they did ask that something they have the copyright to be taken down.

Actually, Universal only claims to have copyright to the first video. This seems unlikely since the video is a criticism of Universal. Now they have taken down a video that is a news report on their disputed claim to the first video. Use of short clips to illustrate a news report is such a classic case of fair use that no rights holder can claim to be unaware that the use is lawful. A takedown request is either grossly incompetent or malicious.

What Megaupload has done here is brilliant. They have baited Universal into conducting a dramatic live demonstration of the dangers of giving copyright holder unilateral takedown powers.

Re:Punish unjust copyright claims

[lorenlal]

You say that as if there is only one person who is responsible for this. I can think of a whole bunch of puppets in a building by the national mall doing exactly that. Even more so when you think of the defense appropriations bill that just went through the senate.

But who's counting at this point?

Even with that, the GP is right. As long as a SLAPP is enough to accomplish what you're trying to do (delay the message until it won't be relevant), that's all they really care about. I would imagine it would be pretty hard to legally define "ass-hattedness," but if we could, I can think of all sorts of excellent ways to punish people for it.

Re:Punish unjust copyright claims

[Grishnakh]

George Bush was voted IN, not out. He served two terms, the maximum allowed by law, and then someone else was voted in because Bush wasn't allowed to run any more, by law.

He's talking about Obama, who in practice isn't any different from Bush in most ways, and is even more in the pocket of Hollywood and the copyright cartels, along with his buddy Biden.

Re:Punish unjust copyright claims

[Grishnakh]

Yes, but "we" allowed it by not making our representatives in Congress pass a law specifically forbidding it. "We the people" are ultimately responsible for our government, and anything our government does is "our" fault for voting them in.

It's like this in every country. The people of a country are always to blame for its government, no matter what kind of government they have. If the people don't like the government, it's their responsibility to change it, by any means necessary (including violent revolution--see Libya for a recent example of this). If the people don't, then it can be assumed the government operates with their permission. Of course, it's not quite so simple in some cases where a country has multiple ethnic groups that hate each other; Saddam's Iraq was an example of this. In those cases, you can't assume the oppressed minority approves of the government, but you can assume the majority that the government draws its power from does.

Re:Punish unjust copyright claims

[Anthony Mouse]

It seems to me that you could solve the problem pretty well in the following way: If a copyright holder negligently issues a take down for material that is likely to be fair use, the civil damages are no less than 5% of the total revenues collected with respect to that copyrighted work. If the copyright holder intentionally issues such a take down [like Diebold], the damages are no less than one million dollars.

That would pretty well sort it out, and with no help from any prosecutors office: The victims could collect directly in civil court. And copyright holders who find they are unable to tell whether something is fair use are free to request an injunction in court instead of using the take down process, so that a judge can make that determination in an adversarial proceeding prior to the copyright holder subjecting itself to any liability for issuing a fraudulent take down.

Re:Punish unjust copyright claims

[Dog-Cow]

It's been this way forever

FTFY.

Re:Punish unjust copyright claims

[bws111]

For the same reason we allow labor unions, the EFF, and any other group to donate to political parties. Groups of people are still people with the same rights they always had even if they were not in a group. Exercising your freedom of association does not strip you of other rights.

Re:Punish unjust copyright claims

[rickb928]

From the U.S. Copyright Office:

"Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
The nature of the copyrighted work
The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work"

Sounds like this snippet met the third purpose. It also seems the rights holder would have a hard time demonstrating the fourth factor, though they would essentially shut YouTube down if they could demonstrate the first factor was a commercial nature, and claimed Google was the commercial beneficiary of that.

The 'amount and substantiality' factor leads you to think that a short clip could violate that, but could we argue in court that a short snippet would actually enhance the market or value by further popularizing the original work and driving even more audience and buyers that might otherwise not be exposed, and did not recieve a substantive portion of the work, therefore impelling them to purchase?

Or more simply put, having heard a short snippet, some of those YouTube viewers might actually buy the damned song that would not otherwise be aware of it at all?

We need to do a lot of work on this, starting at the ballot box.

Re:Punish unjust copyright claims

[Asic Eng]

You still have freedom of association if you don't let companies make political donations. No company shareholder is banned from additionally joining or founding a political association and donating with their own money.

On the other hand, owning shares in a company does not mean you agree about politics with other shareholders, that would be a weird coincidence. Using your share of the company's profits in order to support a political party is therefore quite improper, as it's using your money against your interests. The only way a company can use company money for political purpose and reasonably assume that it acts in the interests of it's shareholders at the same time, is if those contributions are beneficial to the company's business interests. However that's exactly what companies should not be allowed to do. Now if a company has just a single owner, or if there are just a few owners and they happen to agree on politics, then there wouldn't be a problem with the company making donations. However in that case they could just as well donate with their private money, there is no legitimate reason why they have to do it as a company.

There are no rights being lost by not allowing companies to donate - just bribery would be reduced a little.

Re:Punish unjust copyright claims

[Sarius64]

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/29/obamas-easy-credit/

“Fully $100 million of the record-breaking $150 million that the Obama campaign collected in September alone came over the internet via credit card donations,” writes Bill Dyer at Hugh Hewitt’s blog. “The Obama campaign has deliberately turned off the anti-fraud mechanisms available for internet credit card transactions. They have no clue how many millions or tens of millions of dollars have been donated to them in violation of federal election law. And now it turns out that the Obama campaign cheerfully takes even contributions from untraceable pre-paid credit cards, a/k/a ‘the pseudo-credit cards you use when you want to conceal illegal activity.’ ”

"The whole “back-end screening” farce is insulting to anyone with a second-grade education. The Obama campaign cannot possibly have any objective measurement to even roughly estimate how many mistakes and how many episodes of deliberate fraud they’re catching versus how many they’re simply missing, even if one is naive enough to presume their good-faith best efforts."

"Moreover, everything the Obama campaign has yet said about this entire issue utterly ignores the key questions: (1) Who ordered the anti-fraud protections turned off? And (2) why hasn’t Barack Obama already fired every such person, and exposed them for criminal prosecution as aiders and abettors of national and international campaign contribution fraud?"

Mark Steyn, writing at the Corner:

"So two-thirds of Obama’s record haul derives from a website that intentionally disabled all the default security checks that prevent basic fraud like fake addresses and no-name matches .Here’s the bottom line: Two-thirds of the record-breaking haul Obama raised for the final stretch of the campaign comes from a racket set up to facilitate fake names, phony addresses and untraceable cards."

-------------------

How many RIAA lawyers work for Justice now?

Re:Punish unjust copyright claims

[KarrdeSW]

That's how it works in criminal court. Copyright Infringement is a civil matter, which is why people are getting sued for money rather than placed in jail. In Civil Cases you (usually) need something called "preponderance of the evidence", which is basically the same as just piling legal briefs onto each side of a sea saw until one side clearly tips.

Re:Punish unjust copyright claims

[anyGould]

(I hate people who scream "throw out the bums!" and then re-elect their own Congressmen.)

They did studies on that - most people believe (or are convinced) that it's those other idiot voters that elect the stupid politicians, and it's only *their* guy that's fighting the good fight.

Re:Punish unjust copyright claims

[gorzek]

The law may be interpreted that way by legal scholars, but it isn't enforced that way in practice, and most people do not have the resources to make a Fair Use defense in court. Much easier just to take down the offending work and hope it goes away.

Re:Punish unjust copyright claims

[Asmodae]

Sure there's a reasonable alternative. Nobody is allowed to donate. Campaign sizes are fixed, and provided for. Fixed and equal amounts of airtime/debate time for everyone who gets enough signatures. Equating monetary donations to speech is where the problem starts. I don't necessarily think that's wrong, but it opens too many floodgates that you can't really close in an equitable manner.

Re:Punish unjust copyright claims

[glaqua]

Corporations as persons is a very narrow legal standing that simplifies some transactions that corporations are involved in. Are you really trying to argue that anything that pays taxes should get a vote? Because the USA has an estate tax, that is levied on the assets of a dead person. Who gets the vote in that situation, the dead guy, or the actual assets themselves? There is a tax on cigarettes and gasoline, how on earth will we get cigarettes go hold a pen so they can check the box?

At the end of all the figuring, it is an individual who is paying the tax, either the consumer, the beneficiaries of the estate, or the shareholders of the corporation. and these people are represented, as they have been able to vote.

By allowing corporations to have a say in politics, you are actually giving individual shareholders additional say in politics. They get their same original one vote, but now they get an additional vote, and additional influence through the corporation.

We are rightly disgusted when an individual tries to bride a public figure. But we are fine with that individual forming a corporation, and allowing the corporation to do the bribing?

Where did it all go so wrong?

Re:Punish unjust copyright claims

[fahrbot-bot]

Why the fuck do you allow corporates to donate to political parties?

Because, apparently, corporations are considered people in the US, at least for Freedom of Speech issues. They have other rights too, but apparently few responsibilities - except to their shareholders - and this is the problem. I mean, if they're people, why do they get special tax rules and rates, limited liability? Why are they allowed to pick their state of incorporation, regardless of where their headquarters or major operations are located? Many (most?) banks pick Delaware because the state's laws favor corporations (http://www.delawareintercorp.com/t-WhyIncorporateinDelaware.aspx). Hell, I live in Virginia, but would love to pick Florida (no state income tax).

So why are Corporations People? Because Corporations helped write the laws and fund our Politicians.

Re:Punish unjust copyright claims

[anyGould]

They're not allowed to vote, so all they can do is lobby and donate.

Let's be honest - the only reason corporations can't vote is because there's no benefit to them being able to. If that one extra vote meant they'd get their wishes, you'd better believe they'd be in front of the justices saying "corporations are people, and people can vote".

But if we're going to take the stance that corporations aren't people, and don't have the right to lobby/donate, then I can't find a valid argument for taxing them.

Counter-argument: corporations are simply implementations of contractual business obligations - it's still people underneath, whom all have the ability of free speech.

A corporation is just a particular kind of business. Timmy's lemonade stand is a business (it could even be a corporation if Timmy's dad has the spare scratch), and no-one believes that it's a person. My dog is taxed (there's a fee for him to be allowed in the city limits; bastard makes me pay for it, though). Does that mean my dog is people too?

Finally, philosophically "corporation as person" fails the simple test of "who is that person?". There is no "Sony" or "Nintendo", no-one and nothing can stand up and claim to *be* the corporation, only a representative. You can't arrest or draft a corporation. Simply put, a corporation is incapable of performing the duties of a person that go along with the rights it argues for.

Re:Punish unjust copyright claims

[suppo]

Fail on so many levels that you must have graduated from Yale or Harvard.

Corporations are legal entities, having nothing to do with science (unless science is part of their business strategy to make a profit).

So your neighbor Mike who is a house painter with a business license allowing him to operate as ABC House Painting suddenly becomes "second class" in your eyes. And his taxes are "a tribute" to government? If his are, then so are yours (if you pay any).

Businesses do not exist to "provide service to the populace". That may be a strategy, but the fundamental reason for a business to exist is to make a profit. If there is no profit, the business will fail. Note that a failed business pays no taxes (excuse me, tribute).

As for "wiping all businesses off the planet", from whom do you get your money to buy your lattes and tofu? That person either owned a business or worked for wages at one (or inherited from someone who did). Note there would be no mass market availability of lattes and tofu without successful, profit making businesses.

Come back when your brain is fully baked.

Re:Punish unjust copyright claims

[Trailer Trash]

Wrong. Those are sworn under penalty of perjury. It's just that nobody has been prosecuted yet. Whaddya bet if you or I did that we'd find out about perjury real quick?

Re:Punish unjust copyright claims

[jahudabudy]

I would. It's clear that any group whose primary purpose is to advance the financial well-being of it's members is going to participate in the political process only where there is a perceived financial benefit to doing so. This perverts the political process. Ban it all.

Re:Punish unjust copyright claims

[EdIII]

Two Words: Animal Farm.

Laws apply to the Plebs. Laws do not apply to those in power. Those in power make the laws.

Eventually, the Plebs get fed up with the bullshit and kill those in power. Some of the Plebs get used to the benefits and trappings of power. They cease to be Plebs.

Rinse. Repeat.

I doubt approval from YouTube is even necessary

[daitengu]

It's quite likely that large corporations like Universal, Viacom, etc. have access to pull things down from YouTube on copyright claims without Youtube's approval.

I assume Youtube assumed these organizations would use their power responsibly. Perhaps that assumption needs to be revisited.

No

[klingens]

It obviously doesn't have the right. It's fair use for the purpose of reporting news.

This is simple collateral damage when you use software to automatically flag copyright violations and then act on that software's flagging automatically too cause humans are simply too expensive to police it all manually. Happens all the time. All the usual slashdot tropes of printers which do torrents, grandmas that get notices, openoffice that gets removed from ftp servers, etc.

Youtube and your mail client's spamfilter have the same problem: false positives. Both use an automated system to flag violations of policy and in both cases it mostly works but never 100%. You cannot demand from youtube or the RIAA to flag it all manually, just like you can't really flag all your spam manually: if you do, either Youtube goes out of business cause their business model does not allow that many employees and still serve you videos for "free". Or the major labels go out of business since they have to hire people to police youtube and demand even more per song. I'm sure many /.ers would like this 2nd outcome but it's not really realistic or actually desirable either.

So Tech News should alert youtube to unblock their video and move on. Oh I forgot: better to post it to slashdot frontpage so Tech News can get a few thousand more hits! Genius! The RIAA is evil after all.

Re:No

[SoTerrified]

cause humans are simply too expensive to police it all manually.

This is ridiculous. That's like saying everyone arrested should just be considered guilty and sentenced because it's simply too expensive to have trials for everyone. Yes, our courts are jammed and yes, trials are a burden, but the alternative is simply unacceptable.

So why is this any different?

Re:No

[cheekyjohnson]

If they don't want to do it manually, then too bad for them. I'd rather let real violations go than allow them to send take down notices at random.

Re:No

[acedtect]

Just to be clear we, at Tech news Today have posted a counter-notice and YouTube requires our show to stay off YouTube for 10 days to give UMG the opportunity to decide whether to take us to court or not. We also did not submit this story to Slashdot.

DMCA Gives the Right

[pscottdv]

should a music company have the right to have a news podcast removed on copyright grounds, when it's not even clear that said company has had any copyrights violated?

Should they? No. But the DMCA gives them the right (or at least the ability) to do so. It gives it to you, too. My understanding is that anyone can file a DMCA takedown notice.

I have often wondered what would happen if people started filing DMCA takedown notices by the millions on major websites against the big content producers. There doesn't seem to be any penalty for filing bogus notices.

Re:DMCA Gives the Right

[Rob the Bold]

I have often wondered what would happen if people started filing DMCA takedown notices by the millions on major websites against the big content producers. There doesn't seem to be any penalty for filing bogus notices.

If individuals started doing this, I assure you there would be consequences for them. The feds, the MPAAs and RIAAs and their members, and even YouTube itself understands that this law can be abused, but that privilege is for the modern nobility, not the masses.

Music Video Irrelevant

[Vegemeister]

The copyright status of the clip used is irrelevant. The situation is this: Media conglomerates have been given editorial control of Youtube, subject only to the ability of posters to retain high-priced legal counsel. They can and do use these powers to further their own agenda.

Re:No more "Fair Use" law?

[gral]

I am sure you can take it to court, and they will side with you. The problem is, it is so easy for them to claim DMCA against a site, have it taken down. You then have to go through costly litigation to prove you were right in the first place.

Now if the courts allow for you to turn around and charge for the number of people that would have seen your item if they hadn't used DMCA, now THAT would be interesting to see.

Re:No more "Fair Use" law?

[Fnord666]

The problem is, it is so easy for them to claim DMCA against a site, have it taken down. You then have to go through costly litigation to prove you were right in the first place.

False.
You file the counterclaim that is provided for in the DMCA, indicating that to the best of your knowledge you are not infringing copyright. The ISP must then put the content back up If the copyright holder still wants to pursue the matter, it is up to them to take it to court.

MegaUpload Video

[AdamJS]

They did not have the copyright to it.

Re:MegaUpload Video

[WilCompute]

This clip was in no way owned by UMG. Megaupload solicited and paid the artist for the comercial, has releases from the artist to prove it. Megaupload holds the copyright to the video. UMG filed the takedown notice on the clip without holding the copyright, which was the story covered by TNT. TNT showed a video of the clip, without audio, and spoke over the clip. At the end, to show how bad the song was, they played less than 3 seconds of the end of the clip. UMG is being taken to court by Megaupload over the takedown notice for the original video. I was the original broadcast of TNT. UMG is censoring the news, and acting anti-competitively.

Please stop being a shill and think. Spread FUD elsewhere.

Re:Fair Use?

[SuricouRaven]

Same as always. Fair use is a perfectly valid defence, providing you are willing to spend a huge pile of money hireing lawyers and going to court over it. That's just how it usually works with the legal system: People have as many rights as they can afford to defend, and no more.

Here is why I have no problem with this

[fermion]

We live in a great world where a third party will pay for the storage and bandwidth to have other watch my lame videos. This is great because it costs me nothing to publish my videos. There is no risk and no expense beyond the production costs which can also be negligible.

Why is this possible? Because bandwidth is cheap, because storage is cheap, and because there is little risk of legal costs. The US Government has said that as long as a service take down any content that they have been notified violates a copyright, the service is not subject to any legal action. This is good for free services such as Youtube because it eliminates the risk and allows them to accept videos without any filtering.

If one wishes, one can set up one's own video sharing service, pay for the bandwidth, and the legal liability associated with potentially violating copyright. No one is going to stop the setup of such a service, and such a service can be free to ignore takedown notices. It is simply not in the best interest of Youtube, the preeminent distributor of lame and random video, to so do.

Of course many would say why not make the copyright holders for frivolous take down notices. I would support that. But even that would require companies like Google to invest in legal action that may not generate a profit, or at least might generate a greater loss than complying with takedown notices. Also, if policing video got too expensive, then copyright holder might put real money into lobbying congress and buy even worse legislation. This is, after all, the congress that has put more earmarks that funnel tax payer money to their families and buddies than almost any other. And this after a pledge not to so do.

SOPA == Chinese

[mbone]

And they get mad when we compare SOPA to Chinese censorship using the same tools.