Embedding youtubes could be a felony? WTF?

[CosmicCowboy]

http://www.infowars.com/embedding-youtube-videos-may-soon-be-a-felony/


Techdirt reports that Senate bill 978 – a bill to amend the criminal penalty provision for criminal infringement of a copyright, and for other purposes – may be used to prosecute people for embedding YouTube videos.
According to Mark Masnick, if a website embeds a YouTube video that is determined to have infringed on copyright and more than 10 people view it on that website, the owner or others associated with the website could face up to five years in prison.
Read Masnick’s article here. He explains how the new law would expand copyright violations from reproducing and distributing to performing – including streaming video over the internet.
As readers of Infowars.com know, many videos are removed from YouTube after copyright owners complain about infringement. This happens with thousands of news clips every year. Most people are familiar with the now common black box replacing a video that says the video has been removed for copyright reasons.
If enacted, this law will go one step further and turn people who embed a copyrighted video into criminals. It will also set the stage to criminalize linking to copyrighted information — like corporate media news sources — and shut down the alternative media.
It will also make people think twice about putting up all kinds of videos, from news reports to clips from documentaries and other educational material.
It does not take a vivid imagination to realize the political implications of this legislation.
Here is the full text of the bill.

Addendum
It should be noted that outlawing certain activities on the internet is instrumental to the Obama administration’s copyright policy.

In March, the White House’s Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator, Victoria Espinel, provided Congress with a White Paper (available for download here), outlining a series of the Obama Administration’s recommended legislative changes to combat online piracy and counterfeiting.
“Significantly, the recommendations include making it a felony offense to stream infringing content and giving Federal agencies wiretapping authority to obtain evidence of criminal copyright and trademark offenses,” David Makarewicz wrote for Infowars.com on March 17.
Obama’s emerging policy on streaming media dovetails with his administration’s effort to seize web domains. The Department of Homeland Security now arrests web site operators under its “In Our Sites” program.
“On the pretext of protecting intellectual property from infringement and counterfeiters, it’s about fast-tracking Internet distribution and information technology rules to subvert Net Neutrality, privacy, and personal freedoms – global rules for unrestricted free trade, undermining universal, affordable free access, civil liberties, legitimate commerce, and the right of sovereign nations to go their own way,” writes Steve Lendman.
In addition to outlawing video streaming, new legislation “would impose a strong, top-down enforcement regime, with new cooperation requirements upon (ISPs), including perfunctionary disclosure of customer information. The proposal [the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement] also bans ‘anti-circumvention measures which may affect online anonymity systems and would likely outlaw multi-region CD/DVD players. The proposal also specifies a plan to encourage developing nations to accept the legal regime,” imposing consequences for opting out,” a Wikileaks document disclosed in May of 2008.
So-called “secondary copyright liability” will be used to criminalize what is now routine behavior on the internet. It will also be used by the political establishment to eliminate the internet activity – primarily in the form of alternative media – of those who oppose what is shaping up to be a totalitarian state.

[clambake]

darrins gonna get the chair.

[fyatuk]

Quite frankly embedding a video you know is copyrighted and not authorized for distribution by you should be a crime, just as posting it on youtube is.

They probably need a clearer definition of "distribution" to ensure linking to legally posted copyrighted articles isn't illegal. That would just be asinine.

[boutons_deux]

As we heard Rand Paul wanting to imprison people who listened to subversive speeches, he probably wants to imprison people who watch illegal vids.

He's an authoritarian masquerading as a libertarian.

[Blake]

Infowars rocks

[RandomGuy]

Sounds like a short lived bill that will probably die a quick death, as many bad ideas do.

If it passes a vote, I would be highly surprised.

[Blake]

Techdirt reports that Senate bill 978 – a bill to amend the criminal penalty provision for criminal infringement of a copyright, and for other purposes – may be used to prosecute people for embedding YouTube videos.
According to Mark Masnick, if a website embeds a YouTube video that is determined to have infringed on copyright and more than 10 people view it on that website, the owner or others associated with the website could face up to five years in prison.

I see the reasoning.

No problem with it.


As readers of Infowars.com know, many videos are removed from YouTube after copyright owners complain about infringement. This happens with thousands of news clips every year. Most people are familiar with the now common black box replacing a video that says the video has been removed for copyright reasons.

lol because readers of Infowars are smart.

The chances of someone embedding a youtube video that infringes on a copyright are getting lower and lower.


It will also make people think twice about putting up all kinds of videos, from news reports to clips from documentaries and other educational material.

Even if the bill passes, they should already think twice.

[ElNono]

Every search engine is a felon then... that's how absurd this is...

[MannyIsGod]

Blake thinks you should be responsible for knowing what is copyrighted and what is not on youtube. Sounds resonable. Yup.

[ElNono]

Blake doesn't know what he's talking about... not uncommon.

YouTube is basically extinct if this passes. Considering that copyright is inherently granted upon creation, anything uploaded or shared from YouTube can potentially be claimed as a copyright violation.

[Blake]

Blake thinks you should be responsible for knowing what is copyrighted and what is not on youtube. Sounds resonable. Yup.

No I don't. Never said that. Nope.

[Blake]

Blake doesn't know what he's talking about... not uncommon.

ElNono still butthurt from the other thread... the quick dig at me here is disappointing but not totally surprising.


YouTube is basically extinct if this passes.

Doubtful.

[jack sommerset]

El No No does get butthurt alot. You think he would be used to getting fucked so much in his ass.

[ElNono]

ElNono still butthurt from the other thread...

:lol

You still don't understand a thing of what copyright law is, what it protects, and how it's prosecuted. I tried to take the time and explain, but unfortunately it's clearly over your head.

Nothing personal, tbh. I have better things to do. I'm sure that if the need arises, you'll be able to hire a lawyer and he'll bring you up to speed.


Doubtful.

Obviously.

[ElNono]

El No No does get butthurt alot. You think he would be used to getting fucked so much in his ass.

Hey jack. Nice to see you sticking to the homo content, as usual.

Has Obamacare been undone yet? I thought it was a matter of weeks, since you said that judge was rushing everything. It's been what, months? :lol

Another example of being completely unaware of how the justice system works.

[jack sommerset]

Hey jack. Nice to see you sticking to the homo content, as usual.

Has Obamacare been undone yet? I thought it was a matter of weeks, since you said that judge was rushing everything. It's been what, months? :lol

Another example of being completely unaware of how the justice system works.

You're a faggot. LoL@barrycare. I am well aware of what barry did and how long it will take to fix, fag. Blake is right, you're asshole is a hurting!!

[ElNono]

You're a faggot. LoL@barrycare. I am well aware of what barry did and how long it will take to fix, fag. Blake is right, you're asshole is a hurting!!

Why are you so mad, jack? :lol
Did your priest 'touch' you when you were a kid? :lmao

Not surprised you have to coattail Blake because you can't come up with your own stuff, though. :rollin

(Cue some more homo references on the response)

[Blake]

:lol

You still don't understand a thing of what copyright law is, what it protects, and how it's prosecuted. I tried to take the time and explain, but unfortunately it's clearly over your head.

Nothing personal, tbh. I have better things to do. I'm sure that if the need arises, you'll be able to hire a lawyer and he'll bring you up to speed.

Clearly over the head of the politician(s) endorsing the bill as well I would suppose?

Definitely nothing personal on my end.

You claiming me not knowing what I'm talking about as being something that's not uncommon seems clearly personal though.........

if you would like me to point out exactly where you were caught not knowing what you were talking about, backtracking and saying "yes, Blake you were right", please let me know. I very much enjoy rehashing such pwnage.


Obviously.

yes.

[ElNono]

Clearly over the head of the politician(s) endorsing the bill as well I would suppose?

The 'over your head' statement has nothing to do with this bill, which I personally consider over-reaching, but not necessarily unconstitutional.

It's what you stated that you understand under copyright law that's definitely over your head.


You claiming me not knowing what I'm talking about as being something that's not uncommon seems clearly personal though.........

Actually, it's the other way around. If I'm saying that's not uncommon to find people being ignorant of certain laws, I'm actually doing the exact opposite of singling you out.


if you would like me to point out exactly where you were caught not knowing what you were talking about, backtracking and saying "yes, Blake you were right", please let me know. I very much enjoy rehashing such pwnage.

Unlike you, I have no problem accepting that I was wrong or misinformed.
You know, like when I asked you to point out where in the law your claim was stated, or why actual prosecutors charge people with a given crime which happens not to be the one you were championing and you were never man enough to acknowledge you had no idea what you were talking about? :lol

Again, it's not uncommon for the ignorant not to know they're talking out of their asses. It takes an informed person to know they're right or wrong.

[LnGrrrR]

The chances of someone embedding a youtube video that infringes on a copyright are getting lower and lower.

But if it does occur, too bad for those people, right?


Even if the bill passes, they should already think twice.

Why? What is wrong in your world with the free flow of information? :lol

It's like you think that linked videos/articles could only have negative ramifications for a site in the form of lost revenue. If that held true, then open-source wouldn't be used nearly anywhere.

[LnGrrrR]

Quite frankly embedding a video you know is copyrighted and not authorized for distribution by you should be a crime, just as posting it on youtube is.

It should be, if anything, a misdemeanor, especially if said website is not used for commercial gain.


They probably need a clearer definition of "distribution" to ensure linking to legally posted copyrighted articles isn't illegal. That would just be asinine.

I'm sure all authorities will show great deals of restraint, as they always do in these situations.

[ElNono]

Where does the buck stop?

- If I link to a YouTube video that has no discernible copyright notice on it, what's stopping the owner of the video from suing me at any given point later on?

- If I grab my handycam and record my nephew playing in the living room, and it just so happens that there's a TV on in the back and gets captured in my film, do I have to seek permission from the copyright owner(s) of whatever was playing on the TV before I can share that video with my family?

[Blake]

The 'over your head' statement has nothing to do with this bill, which I personally consider over-reaching, but not necessarily unconstitutional.

It's what you stated that you understand under copyright law that's definitely over your head.

I understand enough to form the opinion that copyright infringement is theft.

You still have you to make a valid point why I should "stop calling it theft".


Actually, it's the other way around. If I'm saying that's not uncommon to find people being ignorant of certain laws, I'm actually doing the exact opposite of singling you out.

But you did single me out using my name.

I have it in quotes.

It's on this very page.


Unlike you, I have no problem accepting that I was wrong or misinformed.

I have no problem accepting I was wrong or misinformed.

In this case, I still don't believe I am.


You know, like when I asked you to point out where in the law your claim was stated, or why actual prosecutors charge people with a given crime which happens not to be the one you were championing and you were never man enough to acknowledge you had no idea what you were talking about? :lol

Again, it's not uncommon for the ignorant not to know they're talking out of their asses. It takes an informed person to know they're right or wrong.

So you are saying I'm not man enough to admit I'm ignorant and don't know that I am wrong.

:lol :lol

[Blake]

Where does the buck stop?

- If I link to a YouTube video that has no discernible copyright notice on it, what's stopping the owner of the video from suing me at any given point later on?

If you can prove that you are embedding a youtube video in good faith that you aren't infringing on a copyright, you have nothing to worry about.

Interesting that I explained this to you in the other thread, yet you remain ignorant of it.



- If I grab my handycam and record my nephew playing in the living room, and it just so happens that there's a TV on in the back and gets captured in my film, do I have to seek permission from the copyright owner(s) of whatever was playing on the TV before I can share that video with my family?

If it's not a full watchable broadcast of the event/movie and it's shown to be incidentally in the background, I can't see that you would need such permission, but in the end it would depend on the video.

I'm again surprised at your ignorance in an area that I (and you) assumed you to be an expert in.

[fyatuk]

YouTube is basically extinct if this passes. Considering that copyright is inherently granted upon creation, anything uploaded or shared from YouTube can potentially be claimed as a copyright violation.

Not really. The intended purpose of YouTube is to allow distribution of materials that the uploader has the copyright for. The terms of service clearly defines what rights you are granting to YouTube (i.e. royalty free distribution as long as it's posted) and requires you to own the copyright of the material.

As long as it's the copyright holder uploading, playing, linking, embedding, etc, are all perfectly legal under YouTube's terms of service.

This bill is attacking video's uploaded by someone other than the copyright holder. TV episodes, sporting event broadcasts, newsclips, etc, uploaded by random people.

[ElNono]

I understand enough to form the opinion that copyright infringement is theft.

:lol I already know you have no clue what copyright law is.


You still have you to make a valid point why I should "stop calling it theft".

The point was already made when the copyright law was enacted and the crime was called 'copyright infringement' instead of 'theft'. Probably the reason why actual prosecutors charge people with 'copyright infringement' instead of 'theft'. That somehow that escapes you it's not my problem nor worth any more of my time.


But you did single me out using my name.
I have it in quotes.
It's on this very page.

I was replying to Manny, who singled you out.
I have it in quotes.
It's on this very page.


I have no problem accepting I was wrong or misinformed.

Okay.


So you are saying I'm not man enough to admit I'm ignorant and don't know that I am wrong.

It's a scenario that's been quite prevalent around here lately, that's why I pointed out it's not uncommon. Like Wild Cobra trying to compare sound waves through a medium and photons in outer space.

Again, nothing personal.

[fyatuk]

It should be, if anything, a misdemeanor, especially if said website is not used for commercial gain.

If you know something is illegally uploaded and embed it, you're basically an accessory to copyright violation, and should be held accountable as such. I would see it demanding more of a monetary penalty than a criminal one. But yeah, felony level jail time would be pretty stupid.

[ElNono]

Not really. The intended purpose of YouTube is to allow distribution of materials that the uploader has the copyright for. The terms of service clearly defines what rights you are granting to YouTube (i.e. royalty free distribution as long as it's posted) and requires you to own the copyright of the material.

As long as it's the copyright holder uploading, playing, linking, embedding, etc, are all perfectly legal under YouTube's terms of service.

This bill is attacking video's uploaded by someone other than the copyright holder. TV episodes, sporting event broadcasts, newsclips, etc, uploaded by random people.

The problem though it's determining that the content is indeed all yours. It can be difficult at times, as I pointed out in the nephew example above. Unless it's clearly spelled out, you could be liable. The difference would be that before YouTube would just bring down the video, but now you could be facing charges. Now, intent obviously matter, and that's why there's a distinction on willful or non-willful infringement, but the penalties are there for either case under copyright law.

Now, as far as this bill specifically, it goes into linking to a video. So, how does this not apply to search engines too?

[Blake]

But if it does occur, too bad for those people, right?

not so much.


Why? What is wrong in your world with the free flow of information? :lol


Depends on what you are doing.

I wouldn't worry at all about embedding a standard youtube clip on a messageboard.

I'd worry though about uploading a movie from a torrent site.

[ElNono]

Would an animated gif be considered video? Is my sig a felony?

[Blake]

:lol I already know you have no clue what copyright law is.

:lol :lol I know enough now to have pwned you in the other thread.

Nothing personal.


The point was already made when the copyright law was enacted and the crime was called 'copyright infringement' instead of 'theft'. Probably the reason why actual prosecutors charge people with 'copyright infringement' instead of 'theft'. That somehow that escapes you it's not my problem nor worth any more of my time.

I very, very clearly explained I was not talking about theft in the legal sense but in the colloquial sense. I actually used the word "colloquial".

You did waste a lot of you time trying to tell me otherwise.


I was replying to Manny, who singled you out.
I have it in quotes.
It's on this very page.

Who you were replying to is irrelevant.
You used my name.
You singled me out.
I have it in quotes.
It's on the previous page.


Okay.

k.


It's a scenario that's been quite prevalent around here lately, that's why I pointed out it's not uncommon. Like Wild Cobra trying to compare sound waves through a medium and photons in outer space.

Again, nothing personal.


You are wrong about me being wrong about my opinion.

even though you singled me out and look butthurt, I don't take your ignorance personal.

[Blake]

.

[Blake]

Would an animated gif be considered video? Is my sig a felony?

Doubtful it's a felony, but is there a copyright on the gif in your sig?

[LnGrrrR]

If you can prove that you are embedding a youtube video in good faith that you aren't infringing on a copyright, you have nothing to worry about.

How would one prove "good faith" in a court of law? Just curious.


If it's not a full watchable broadcast of the event/movie and it's shown to be incidentally in the background, I can't see that you would need such permission, but in the end it would depend on the video.

I'm again surprised at your ignorance in an area that I (and you) assumed you to be an expert in.

I do believe that music companies have tried to go after people who have had music in the bg of their podcasts/youtube submissions/etc etc.

Youtube has found a unique way around that:

http://mashable.com/2009/01/14/youtube-mutes-videos/

http://www.4rticle.com/copyright-infringement-on-youtube-109926.html

... but not every video is uplinked from Youtube.

[ElNono]

:lol :lol I know enough now to have pwned you in the other thread.

:lol your opinion on what constitutes 'ownage' is as good as your opinion on anything related to copyright infringement: worthless.


I very, very clearly explained I was not talking about theft in the legal sense but in the colloquial sense. I actually used the word "colloquial".

Well, we just happened to be talking law, not English.


You did waste a lot of you time trying to tell me otherwise.

I did. My fault.


Who you were replying to is irrelevant.

Might be irrelevant to you, not to me. Otherwise I wouldn't have replied to Manny's post.


You are wrong about me being wrong about my opinion.

:jack


even though you singled me out and look butthurt, I don't take your ignorance personal.

I wasn't even replying to you or your post, even though I had the chance to. That's how butthurt I was :lol

I was replying to Manny. You don't have to agree with the opinion I have of you when it comes to legalese.

[LnGrrrR]

Not really. The intended purpose of YouTube is to allow distribution of materials that the uploader has the copyright for.

That may have been the original purpose of Youtube, but I'd say Youtube's current purpose has far exceeded its humble origins.


This bill is attacking video's uploaded by someone other than the copyright holder. TV episodes, sporting event broadcasts, newsclips, etc, uploaded by random people.

Which is done by how many thousands of users daily? I don't really think we need to invest a ton of resources fighting a low-level crime that occurs so often.

[ElNono]

Doubtful it's a felony, but is there a copyright on the gif in your sig?

You're the expert. Is there? :lol

[LnGrrrR]

You're the expert. Is there? :lol

I'm pretty sure there's a copyright on that somewhere.

Speaking of which, for now on, consider all my posts copyrighted as well as trademarked.

I will vigorously defend these trademarks and copyrights, and make sure that anyone who quotes me does so only with my permission.

If you would like to quote one of my posts, please send me a PM with a polite request, marking the post, where and how many times you'd like to reproduce it, and for what reasons.

Thanks in advance!

[Stringer_Bell]

Without reading what any of your pork eating heathens think about this issue, I just wanted to say...

The war on copyright infringement is completely useless and a last ditch effort by the elite to squeeze a few thousand dollars out of people by fining them for 1) shit they hardly know about and 2) shit that shouldn't be illegal in the first place. No one is CREATING new shit anyway, they just want to find ways to own shit and tax it. Totally useless and not helpful to this helpless country if something like this passes.

Tbqfh

[ElNono]

If you can prove that you are embedding a youtube video in good faith that you aren't infringing on a copyright, you have nothing to worry about.

Wrong. non-willfull copyright infringement is still a punishable offense. See:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&case=/data2/circs/8th/952304p.html

The state of mind of the infringer is relevant, if at all, only to the award of damages. Although it is not entirely clear from the way the argument is structured in C.H.L.R.'s brief, we will assume that the contention is that there is a genuine issue of material fact (or that C.H.L.R. was not on notice that it should offer evidence to show one) on the question whether the infringements were unknowing, that is, "innocent," rather than knowing or "willful." "Innocent" and "willful" are terms of art in copyright law. If proved, innocence or willfulness may have a bearing on the amount of statutory damages awarded but cannot affect liability.


If it's not a full watchable broadcast of the event/movie and it's shown to be incidentally in the background, I can't see that you would need such permission, but in the end it would depend on the video.

I'm again surprised at your ignorance in an area that I (and you) assumed you to be an expert in.

I know the answer to the question(s). I wanted the colloquial opinion of the expert.

[fyatuk]

The problem though it's determining that the content is indeed all yours. It can be difficult at times, as I pointed out in the nephew example above. Unless it's clearly spelled out, you could be liable. The difference would be that before YouTube would just bring down the video, but now you could be facing charges. Now, intent obviously matter, and that's why there's a distinction on willful or non-willful infringement, but the penalties are there for either case under copyright law.

If you are trying to make money, then yes it is, most likely. If it's not the focal point of the video and you are not trying to make money, then it almost definitely falls under "fair use" (Title 17, section 107) via test 1 (non-commercial use) and 3 (portion of the whole). Fair Use is a gamble to rely on, of course, but it'd almost assuredly be granted to any video where the image capture would be deemed incidental.


Now, as far as this bill specifically, it goes into linking to a video. So, how does this not apply to search engines too?

The bill does not specifically mention linking, which usually isn't classified as "distribution" and certainly can't be construed as "public performance." So linking certainly wouldn't fall in the new jail-time scenario painted by this bill. The legality or unlegality of linking wouldn't really change. In fact, this bill is just repeating a clause already on the books for music and applying it to public performances of other media.

As for search engines, even so they would be immune. Since they are run via automated routines, there can be no "willfullness" and hence no crime under Title 17, section 506.


That may have been the original purpose of Youtube, but I'd say Youtube's current purpose has far exceeded its humble origins.

Which is done by how many thousands of users daily? I don't really think we need to invest a ton of resources fighting a low-level crime that occurs so often.

Quite true. I'm just saying that YouTube is still used for it's intended purpose by thousands of people. It becomes a significantly smaller enterprise, but it doesn't cease to exist as ElNono said.

[fyatuk]

<cut for copyright joke>

Just to point out, your posts are already technically copyrighted.

And a post is not eligible for TM.

[Blake]

How would one prove "good faith" in a court of law? Just curious.

Based on youtube policies and the knowledge that they actively remove copyrighted material.

[ElNono]

If you are trying to make money, then yes it is, most likely. If it's not the focal point of the video and you are not trying to make money, then it almost definitely falls under "fair use" (Title 17, section 107) via test 1 (non-commercial use) and 3 (portion of the whole). Fair Use is a gamble to rely on, of course, but it'd almost assuredly be granted to any video where the image capture would be deemed incidental.

I'm in agreement that 107.3 is the likely tier breaker to make it fall under the Fair Use limitation. 107.1 could bear some weight, but ultimately it's not a deciding factor.


The bill does not specifically mention linking, which usually isn't classified as "distribution" and certainly can't be construed as "public performance." So linking certainly wouldn't fall in the new jail-time scenario painted by this bill. The legality or unlegality of linking wouldn't really change. In fact, this bill is just repeating a clause already on the books for music and applying it to public performances of other media.

17.506.3 already provides for criminal video distribution. This bill is actually changing Title 18, and the adding stiffer penalties for "public performance" (which is a really loose term).

EDIT: After reading the bill again, it also broadens the scope of 17.506.3 to include the figure of unauthorized public performance.

Embedding is no different than linking. An embedded video is actually a link to a video that the browser renders in place.


As for search engines, even so they would be immune. Since they are run via automated routines, there can be no "willfullness" and hence no crime under Title 17, section 506.

That's really up to interpretation, and that's what I don't like about open-ended definitions like that. If we start by the fact that every work is inherently copyrighted, unless the search engine has an actual rights waiver on the specific videos it embeds, you can construe that they were willingly linking to copyrighted videos.

[Blake]

:lol your opinion on what constitutes 'ownage' is as good as your opinion on anything related to copyright infringement: worthless.

seeing someone get butthurt over my opinion has value to me.


Well, we just happened to be talking law, not English.

and that clarification was made in the other thread.


I did. My fault.

truly.

way to man up to yourself.


Might be irrelevant to you, not to me. Otherwise I wouldn't have replied to Manny's post.

It's irrelevant to the fact you singled me out.

You used one single name in the post. Mine.

It's still there in quotes.


I wasn't even replying to you or your post, even though I had the chance to. That's how butthurt I was :lol

I was replying to Manny. You don't have to agree with the opinion I have of you when it comes to legalese.

if you misspoke, just man up and admit it to avoid further pwnage.

otherwise, you very very clearly singled me out.

[ElNono]

:blah:blah:blah:blah

You still don't know what you're talking about.

lol good faith :lol

[Blake]

Wrong. non-willfull copyright infringement is still a punishable offense. See:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&case=/data2/circs/8th/952304p.html

The state of mind of the infringer is relevant, if at all, only to the award of damages. Although it is not entirely clear from the way the argument is structured in C.H.L.R.'s brief, we will assume that the contention is that there is a genuine issue of material fact (or that C.H.L.R. was not on notice that it should offer evidence to show one) on the question whether the infringements were unknowing, that is, "innocent," rather than knowing or "willful." "Innocent" and "willful" are terms of art in copyright law. If proved, innocence or willfulness may have a bearing on the amount of statutory damages awarded but cannot affect liability.

Since we are talking about criminal charges in this thread, that's what I was referring to, but I will elaborate.

"You should have nothing to worry about from a criminal standpoint."

It is absolutely a defense to the prosecution to say that you acted in good faith that you had no idea you were infringing on copyrighted material.

I agree that civil suits are a different matter.



I know the answer to the question(s). I wanted the colloquial opinion of the expert.

I gave you plenty of colloquial opinions from experts in law and politics.

If you failed to even read through them, that's on you.

But if you really want them again, I will be glad to copy and paste from the other thread.

[LnGrrrR]

If you are trying to make money, then yes it is, most likely. If it's not the focal point of the video and you are not trying to make money, then it almost definitely falls under "fair use" (Title 17, section 107) via test 1 (non-commercial use) and 3 (portion of the whole). Fair Use is a gamble to rely on, of course, but it'd almost assuredly be granted to any video where the image capture would be deemed incidental.

It hasn't worked for music, it seems. The music is either muted or the user has ads placed there by youtube to give money to the copyright holder.


Quite true. I'm just saying that YouTube is still used for it's intended purpose by thousands of people. It becomes a significantly smaller enterprise, but it doesn't cease to exist as ElNono said.

Youtube as society has come to know it would cease to exist. It would become a fringe website. That's what ElNoNo is getting at.

[LnGrrrR]

Just to point out, your posts are already technically copyrighted.

And a post is not eligible for TM.

It defeats the purpose of the joke to explain it. :)

[LnGrrrR]

Based on youtube policies and the knowledge that they actively remove copyrighted material.

I don't think "I didn't know it was wrong because I thought Youtube was doing my job of screening the copyright for me" would hold up in court.

[ElNono]

Since we are talking about criminal charges in this thread, that's what I was referring to, but I will elaborate.

"You should have nothing to worry about from a criminal standpoint."

How about the colloquial sense. Anything to worry about?


I gave you plenty of colloquial opinions from experts in law and politics.

One is plenty? :lol
When I need more colloquial opinions, I'll let you know.

In the meantime I'll stick discussing law with fyatuk since he seems to know what he's talking about. :tu

[Blake]

You still don't know what you're talking about.

lol good faith :lol

lol the pwnage continues :lol


The burden of proving innocent intent is on the defendant and is “a heavy one.”[7] “The defendant must prove that it did not know and should not have known that its conduct constituted infringement.”[8] Further, the defendant “must not only establish its good faith belief in the innocence of its conduct, [but] it must also show that it was reasonable in holding such a belief.”[9]

http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Innocent_infringement

[Blake]

One is plenty? :lol
When I need more colloquial opinions, I'll let you know.

gave you more than one.

lol


In the meantime I'll stick discussing law with fyatuk since he seems to know what he's talking about. :tu

don't worry, I don't take you ignoring me personal.

lol

[ElNono]

lol the pwnage continues :lol

http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/copyright-defenses.htm
Paragraph IV, Section A, Tier 3

Still don't know what you're talking about :lol

lol good faith

[ElNono]

don't worry, I don't take you ignoring me personal.

:lol ignoring you
:lol you're so mad

[LnGrrrR]

I think you could have just as easily bolded THESE parts.



The burden of proving innocent intent is on the defendant and is “a heavy one.”[7] “The defendant must prove that it did not know and should not have known that its conduct constituted infringement.”[8] Further, the defendant “must not only establish its good faith belief in the innocence of its conduct, [but] it must also show that it was reasonable in holding such a belief.”[9]

How would a defendant go about proving they didn't know, and that they ought not to have known?

[Slomo]

I kinda understand what they are trying to do - and the idea itself is not that bad - but the execution is something I would expect from an undeveloped third world country.

Linking is different from embedding in the sense that embedding allows to see the content without visiting the website where the content is (and of course the advertising). The part where I kinda understand this law is that if the site where the video is embedded is itself a commercial site with paid advertising it make one profit from something that it doesn't own. Making an exception for non commercial sites would actually be profitable to the copyright owners.

Linking on the other hand takes you to the other website and shouldn't be an issue.

Anyway both (linking and embedding) can be easily blocked by the server where the content is - so why do you need a law?

Why are the owner of the site punished for the actions of the users (Kori doesn't embed videos on ST - the users do)? So it basically force the website owners to disable that function - which is a step back on the internet's evolution ladder.

I hate this kind of regulations because frankly I think it damages the internet (like geofilters), creates resentment and that's bad business practice. Frankly no other country has profited more from the internet than the USA- and now the US is basically trying to shot itself in the foot (see online poker).

[Winehole23]

I kinda understand what they are trying to do - and the idea itself is not that bad - but the execution is something I would expect from an undeveloped third world country.Ouch.

+1 on the shooting ourselves in the foot analogy. The political expediency of the moment can be a soul crusher in the long run.

[TDMVPDPOY]

to embed or not is another problem

now if you remove it and its contents, then whats the purpose of those commercial hosting video sites who thrive from illegal content ala copyrighted media to viewers....

[Blake]

http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/copyright-defenses.htm
Paragraph IV, Section A, Tier 3

Still don't know what you're talking about :lol

lol good faith

lol sure I do.

lol Viacom v Google




...The court ruled that despite the finding that YouTube was generally aware of the infringing activity, YouTube was entitled to protection under the safe harbor provision. In order to lose the protection of the safe harbor, the defendant must be aware of "specific and identifiable infringements of particular individual items" and fail to act expeditiously to remove them upon notice. Mere knowledge of "ubiquitous" infringement is not enough to "impose a duty on the service provider to monitor or search its services for infringements."

.......

Currently, the DMCA places no filtering burden on website owners. It nevertheless remains important for OSP's to:

-Exercise good faith in attempting to limit infringement on their sites
-Act timely in responding to "take down" notices

......

http://www.bullivant.com/Viacom-Copyright-Claims-Dismissed



lol further pwnage

lol the end of youtube

[ElNono]

lol sure I do.

lol Viacom v Google

:lol Viacom v Google protects Google, not the user
:lol good faith
:lol Viacom v Google predates this bill
:lol YouTube embedding is a huge part of their business
:lol still don't know what you're talking about
:lol colloquial expert
:lol grasping at straws trying to save face
:lol still mad

[Kori Ellis]

Anyway both (linking and embedding) can be easily blocked by the server where the content is - so why do you need a law?


This is the part that doesn't make sense to me. YouTube can just stop the embedding capability, and then the videos won't be embedded anywhere. So what's the point of the law? :wtf

And as far as linking goes...no website wants people to stop linking to them. That's how sites get traffic ($), so why would a site not want anyone to link to it?

I understand not wanting copyrighted videos or text being reproduced, but this law doesn't make any sense.

Anyway, as I understand, committee is reviewing the bill next week: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s112-978 I'm sure it won't go far after that.

There's another thread in the Spurs forum about this too: http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=180843

[Slomo]

Ouch.

+1 on the shooting ourselves in the foot analogy. The political expediency of the moment can be a soul crusher in the long run.

Seriously I understand that not everybody is network/IT savvy, but when this kind of legislation is drafted I would expect there's enough smart people that would politely and discreetly point out the stupidity of the legislation to its author.
Then again after watching the last session of our parliament - maybe I'm assuming a bit much.


...
And as far as linking goes...no website wants people to stop linking to them. That's how sites get traffic ($), so why would a site not want anyone to link to it?

...

Exactly, so I don't even think that linking is part of the issue. And frankly the reason behind embedding is similar. By allowing embedding I'm sure youtube has increased the # of visits to their site resulting in more $$$ (beside padding their stats of the embedded views as visits).

[ElNono]

Why are the owner of the site punished for the actions of the users (Kori doesn't embed videos on ST - the users do)? So it basically force the website owners to disable that function - which is a step back on the internet's evolution ladder.

Kori would most likely be protected by the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA. The slippery slope for users or site operators that are not a service is what does 'public performance' encompass? Just embedding? Isn't a video already on YouTube or other public site falling under the 'public performance'?

This looks like a hastily crafted piece of legislation to provide a way to make liable persons running sites that embed things like Veetle/Flash players that might be broadcasting illegal streams. The problem is that it's too over-reaching, not well thought out and has ample room for abuse.

That's why guys like Google's Eric Schmidt is completely against similar turds (http://www.handalglobal.com/2011/05/google-to-challenge-constitutionality-of-protect-ip-act-previously-coica/).

[mouse]

Let youtube be dicks then someone will come along and make another site even better.

MySpace meet facebook

[Blake]

I think you could have just as easily bolded THESE parts.

a heavy burden of proof does not mean it is difficult to prove the innocent infringement was acted on in good faith....

it simply means that the burden of proof that normally belongs to the accuser now belongs to the defendant.


How would a defendant go about proving they didn't know, and that they ought not to have known?

Viacom vs Google (youtube)

[Blake]

:lol Viacom v Google protects Google, not the user

:lol you mean the uploader of the video?

nobody would disagree with that


:lol good faith

:lol yes :lol


:lol Viacom v Google predates this bill

:lol this bill would have little to no bearing on that ruling

:lol :lol "youtube would become extinct"


:lol YouTube embedding is a huge part of their business
:lol still don't know what you're talking about

:lol you don't know what I'm talking about


:lol grasping at straws trying to save face

:lol not at all


:lol still mad

:lol yes, singling me out means apparently you still are

[Blake]

This is the part that doesn't make sense to me. YouTube can just stop the embedding capability, and then the videos won't be embedded anywhere. So what's the point of the law? :wtf



From the original techdirt article mentioned in the OP.


Supporters of this bill claim that all it's really doing is harmonizing US copyright law's civil and criminal sections. After all, the rights afforded under copyright law in civil cases cover a list of rights: reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works or perform the work. The rules for criminal infringement only cover reproducing and distributing -- but not performing. So, supporters claim, all this does is "harmonize" copyright law and bring the criminal side into line with the civil side by adding "performance rights" to the list of things.

It's not directed at all at youtube and I see nothing in the bill that would change the past ruling that favored youtube.

If youtube continues to allow embedding, I can't see there being a liability issue with it. If there were, based on youtube's compliance history, I agree, they would disable it rather quickly.

[Blake]

http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/copyright-defenses.htm
Paragraph IV, Section A, Tier 3

Still don't know what you're talking about :lol

lol good faith

:lmao what the hell is that? it looks like some law student's rough outline

hilarious.

This thread in essence is regarding criminal prosecution. I could very easily see, and I have already agreed, that a civil penalty can still be assessed even though the infringing party acted in "good faith".

Let me give you a more solid link to look over:


506. Criminal offenses6
(a) Criminal Infringement. —

(1) In general. — Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed —

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html

key word: "willfully"


....Given that willfulness requires an intent to infringe, or at least constructive knowledge of infringement plus a reckless disregard of the victim's rights, a finding of willfulness may be precluded if the defendant acted with a good-faith belief that he was not infringing.

.....

other factors may be relevant to finding an absence of "willfulness":

■Evidence of the defendant's good-faith belief that his conduct was lawful, coupled with rational attempts to comply with the copyright law as supposedly understood by the defendant.[27]
■Acting pursuant to legal counsel, even if the advice was erroneous, if the defendant disclosed all relevant circumstances to his attorney and followed the attorney's advice in good faith.[28]

http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Willfulness

:lol yes, good faith

[greyforest]

Over the last decade, the land of the free is:

1. Trying to imprison people for Youtube compilations
2. Preventing its citizens from gambling online, withholding their money
3. Molesting children who get on commercial airliners
4. Wiretapping citizens' private communication without warrants

The average citizen either doesn't understand, give a shit, or actively fights against their own interests.

Congratulations, government. Your populous is too uneducated to understand that their constitutional rights are being revoked.

[mouse]

MySpace meet Facebook


is this on?..............


If you can record this youtube video you wont regret it.

http://www.youtube.com/user/bigzax25?blend=1&ob=5

[ElNono]

:lol you mean the uploader of the video?
nobody would disagree with that

:lol 1st backpedal


:lol this bill would have little to no bearing on that ruling

colloquially speaking? :lmao
It's a new bill dummy. If it becomes law, you can sue under a new criminal figure. YouTube wouldn't be liable, but their *users* automatically would.


:lol :lol "youtube would become extinct"
:lol you don't know what I'm talking about

YouTube without users = no YouTube.

:lol everybody knows you're not talking about law
:lol colloquial expert
:lol good faith


:lol not at all

:lol more backpedaling


:lol yes, singling me out means apparently you still are

:lol still butthurt because you don't know what you're talking about
:lol colloquial pwnage
:lol furiously looking through Google and still looking like a dumbass
:lol theft
:lol e-cred taking a severe hit

[Winehole23]

Seriously I understand that not everybody is network/IT savvy, but when this kind of legislation is drafted I would expect there's enough smart people that would politely and discreetly point out the stupidity of the legislation to its author.
Then again after watching the last session of our parliament - maybe I'm assuming a bit much.They don't look so great, do they?

For that matter, neither do we, like you just pointed out. Passivity is not practically distinguishable from stupidity.

[Winehole23]

I consult EFF in this area. What policy orgs do you like, Slomo?

[ElNono]

:lmao what the hell is that? it looks like some law student's rough outline

hilarious.

:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao

It's class material from an actual Law Professor at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill that happens to specialize in Copyright and Intellectual Property Law:

http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/

:lol hilarious indeed
:lol next time I'll link to a English professor so you feel more at home


This thread in essence is regarding criminal prosecution. I could very easily see, and I have already agreed, that a civil penalty can still be assessed even though the infringing party acted in "good faith".

Let me give you a more solid link to look over:

key word: "willfully"

:lol yes, good faith

Yes, it is. And a *new* criminal figure would be added to the law: "Public Performance" and damages that apply to that. A lot of people today exercise "good faith" when they upload YouTube videos, and YouTube still has to either silence or yank them up due to copyright claims.

This new figure allows copyright holders to not just flag YouTube, but also file a criminal complaint in federal court. Under the law (not colloquially :lol), YOU (not YouTube) have to prove in front of a court of law that you acted in "good faith", which under copyright law is amongst the worst defenses you can claim, and simply does not remove your liability. At most it can lower the damages.

Which is what the article in the OP is trying to explain, but it obviously has gone way over your head. The bill also has abuse potentials in fomenting the lawsuit-as-a-business model, and even free speech (good luck posting a recording of a politician doing something stupid in a town-hall).

In a nutshell, what you think is "good faith" might have nothing to do with what the copyright holder or even the copyright act thinks it's good faith. And the burden is on your to prove it. Good luck with that.

As far as YouTube, I just think the liability burden becomes so big that the risk outweighs the benefit. Simply use an European video service that doesn't have such liability burden and so competitively speaking, YouTube makes little to no sense anymore.

[ElNono]

Exactly, so I don't even think that linking is part of the issue. And frankly the reason behind embedding is similar. By allowing embedding I'm sure youtube has increased the # of visits to their site resulting in more $$$ (beside padding their stats of the embedded views as visits).

Yes, plus don't forget that embedding is really not a problem for YouTube, money wise, since they now apply the ads as banners on the video. So their ad revenue from the videos is still there even when embedding. Obviously, if you remove embedding, the you're potentially losing that revenue (some people prefer to watch a video embedded as opposed to having to go see it at YouTube, IE: when it's a part of a story).

[LnGrrrR]

I think Blake also isn't considering that Viacom probably can hire better lawyers than Mr Smith down the block.

[Blake]

:lol 1st backpedal

Interesting.

Explain how you think I'm backpedaling.


It's a new bill dummy. If it becomes law, you can sue under a new criminal figure. YouTube wouldn't be liable, but their *users* automatically would.

YouTube without users = no YouTube.

so you believe "user" automatically means "uploader".

No wonder you think I'm backpedaling.

let me know if you need the colloquial definition of the word "user".


:lol everybody knows you're not talking about law
:lol colloquial expert
:lol good faith

Since you think I'm backpedaling, I have no idea what you think I'm talking about any more.

What do you think everybody thinks I'm talking about?

I've never claimed expertise in anything, only that I have provided plenty of professional opinions that copyright infringement is theft.

If you need to see them before dismissing them again, let me know.

Telling me to stop calling it theft really does little in the grand scheme of things. I might suggest you send a letter to our country's VP and ask him to stop calling it theft as well.


:lol still butthurt because you don't know what you're talking about
:lol colloquial pwnage
:lol furiously looking through Google and still looking like a dumbass
:lol theft
:lol e-cred taking a severe hit

:lol :lol you not needing to use Google
:lol :lol you claiming copyright expertise
:lol :lol you getting pwned by someone using Google

[Blake]

:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao

It's class material from an actual Law Professor at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill that happens to specialize in Copyright and Intellectual Property Law:

http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/

:lol hilarious indeed
:lol next time I'll link to a English professor so you feel more at home

yes, your link to a professor's class lecture draft was pretty hilarious.

Especially since it provided nothing to show that youtube will be extinct if this bill passes.

Next time, you might not want to use the first link that pops up after you hit the search button.


Yes, it is. And a *new* criminal figure would be added to the law: "Public Performance" and damages that apply to that. A lot of people today exercise "good faith" when they upload YouTube videos, and YouTube still has to either silence or yank them up due to copyright claims.

This thread is about embedding a youtube clip.

Embedding does not equal uploading.

Thanks for confirming that you really have not known what you are talking.


Under the law (not colloquially :lol), YOU (not YouTube) have to prove in front of a court of law that you acted in "good faith"

So now you are trying to tell me what I have been telling you.

:lol :lol "good faith"


Which is what the article in the OP is trying to explain, but it obviously has gone way over your head. The bill also has abuse potentials in fomenting the lawsuit-as-a-business model, and even free speech (good luck posting a recording of a politician doing something stupid in a town-hall).

The original article from techdirt is saying that if the bill passes, it could be possible that embedding an infringed video could lead to felony charges.

Again, according to the law, it will depend on "willful" infringement.

If an infringed uploaded video slips past youtube cops and you embed it in good faith that it is not infringed, unless it's a movie or tv show of some sort, chances are that you have a very plausible defense against a criminal charge (different of course than a civil suit, but again, this thread has the word "felony" in the title.)


In a nutshell, what you think is "good faith" might have nothing to do with what the copyright holder or even the copyright act thinks it's good faith. And the burden is on your to prove it. Good luck with that.

As far as YouTube, I just think the liability burden becomes so big that the risk outweighs the benefit. Simply use an European video service that doesn't have such liability burden and so competitively speaking, YouTube makes little to no sense anymore.

In a nutshell,

lol at youtube being extinct if this bill passes

[Blake]

I think Blake also isn't considering that Viacom probably can hire better lawyers than Mr Smith down the block.

I think LnGrrrR is lost.

[ElNono]

Interesting.
Explain how you think I'm backpedaling.

Colloquial plan of action:
1) Claim that if people act in "good faith" they won't be liable
2) Bring up Google vs Viacom to defend the "good faith" angle
2) As soon as it's pointed out that such protection only applies to service providers, not regular internet users, start backpedaling and claim that was obvious
3) :lmao


so you believe "user" automatically means "uploader".

No wonder you think I'm backpedaling.

let me know if you need the colloquial definition of the word "user".

:lol trying to move goalposts again
:lol colloquial reaching


Since you think I'm backpedaling, I have no idea what you think I'm talking about any more.

What do you think everybody thinks I'm talking about?

:lol definitely not law
:lol finally recognizing you don't know what you're talking about


I've never claimed expertise in anything, only that I have provided plenty of professional opinions that copyright infringement is theft.

If you need to see them before dismissing them again, let me know.

:lol colloquial theft
:lol every goalpost can be colloquially moved
:lol when in doubt, reach for colloquialism


Telling me to stop calling it theft really does little in the grand scheme of things. I might suggest you send a letter to our country's VP and ask him to stop calling it theft as well.

:lol prosecutors don't know what they charge people with
:lol colloquial expert dismisses law professor when talking about law
:lol having to reach for Joe Biden, of all people, to make a point for you


:lol :lol you not needing to use Google
:lol :lol you claiming copyright expertise
:lol :lol you getting pwned by someone using Google

:lol quote where I claimed copyright expertise?
:lol colloquial pwnage
:lol running out of e-cred
:lol vicariously living through colloquialism
:lol *still* don't know what you're talking about

[ElNono]

I think Blake also isn't considering that Viacom probably can hire better lawyers than Mr Smith down the block.

You don't need lawyers when you act in "good faith", remember? :lol

[ElNono]

yes, your link to a professor's class lecture draft was pretty hilarious.

Especially since it provided nothing to show that youtube will be extinct if this bill passes.

Next time, you might not want to use the first link that pops up after you hit the search button.

:lol @ laughing at a law professor then claiming that you were looking for something else
:lol the colloquial goalposts can't stop moving


This thread is about embedding a youtube clip.
Embedding does not equal uploading.
Thanks for confirming that you really have not known what you are talking.

:lol the copyright statute applies the same to either
:lol good faith


So now you are trying to tell me what I have been telling you.

:lol :lol "good faith"

:lol "good faith" indeed
:lol "nothing to worry about"
:lol saying one thing, then claiming the opposite
:lol chalking it up to colloquialism


The original article from techdirt is saying that if the bill passes, it could be possible that embedding an infringed video could lead to felony charges.

Again, according to the law, it will depend on "willful" infringement.

If an infringed uploaded video slips past youtube cops and you embed it in good faith that it is not infringed, unless it's a movie or tv show of some sort, chances are that you have a very plausible defense against a criminal charge (different of course than a civil suit, but again, this thread has the word "felony" in the title.)

When you embed the video you're doing it willfully. That's exactly why non-willfull (innocent) infringement defense is amongst the worst in copyright infringement cases (be it criminal or civil), and it won't remove liability. Unless you can 1) prove that the copyright claim is invalid (due to bad registration, fair use exception, etc) or 2) you produced the work, you simply can't claim ignorance of the copyright status of the work. YouTube is protected under Title 17 U.S.C. Sec. 512. Their users are not.

[Blake]

If you can prove that you are embedding a youtube video in good faith that you aren't infringing on a copyright, you have nothing to worry about.



Wrong. non-willfull copyright infringement is still a punishable offense.


Under the law (not colloquially :lol), YOU (not YouTube) have to prove in front of a court of law that you acted in "good faith"

I have heard that forced backpedaling is especially hurtful on the ass.

Since I consider you now to be educated on it, please give your opinion on just how much it hurts.

[Blake]

When you embed the video you're doing it willfully.

but if you can prove you aren't willfully infringing, you will not face any kind of criminal charges.

That's the difference.

[Blake]

:lol quote where I claimed copyright expertise?



....And let me tell you I'm a copyright holder, I've had to deal with piracy of our products, and there's no way in fucking hell you can justify this to me.

I figure you let us in on this tidbit in order to let us know that you work with copyright protection as part of your job.

If you are not a copyright expert, just say so and I will be man enough to admit I was wrong on that one.

It would explain some of your posts if you aren't.

[jack sommerset]

Spewstalk needs to ban the giggling faggot face from ever being used in here again.

[LnGrrrR]

I think LnGrrrR is lost.

You argue that people who are guilty can use the "good faith" argument do you not? And do you agree with the above article, that states that proving good faith is a heavy burden to prove?

Now add that to the fact that most public defenders probably up on copyright protection law. Do you think that Mr Smith really has nothing to worry about?

In a court system where you can be found guilty sharing a "rampant" 30 songs?

[Blake]

You argue that people who are guilty can use the "good faith" argument do you not? And do you agree with the above article, that states that proving good faith is a heavy burden to prove?

Yes, it's a heavy burden to prove.

Does heavy mean difficult? Not necessarily

If you are caught infringing, then it is on you to prove for all practical purposes beyond a shadow of a doubt that you acted in good faith.

In this case, I don't think it would be very difficult to do at all. Embedding a youtube video that has no clear copyright on it would be rather easy to prove that you acted in good faith that it had been properly filitered by youtube or legally uploaded to begin with.


Now add that to the fact that most public defenders probably up on copyright protection law. Do you think that Mr Smith really has nothing to worry about?

Depends on the case, but google/youtube's lawyers have basically already done the work for Mr. Smith.

In this particular case of Spurstalk being liable for innocent infringement?

I don't think Kori has much to worry about at all, but you'd have to throw out a specific incident to talk about.

Winehole referenced EFF.org, and in this article:

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2007/07/youtube-embedding-and-copyright

they pretty much concur.

Embedding is just linking back to youtube itself. If youtube can win a decision because of good faith removal, then a messageboard user simply linking back to youtube should not be any issue either.......especially if a notice is sent to Kori and she immediately removes the link.

This is how it currently is and there is nothing in this new senate bill that changes this to make it tougher on her prove good faith usage.

Even if this bill passes, youtube and embedding of the youtube vids will still be around just the same, no matter how much anyone still claims they won't.

[Winehole23]

Spewstalk needs to ban the giggling faggot face from ever being used in here again.pot --> kettle --> black, faggot.

Without forced hilarity, gay baiting and totally unearned chest-thumping, your posting here would soon slow to a trickle or cease altogether.

[LnGrrrR]

Embedding is just linking back to youtube itself. If youtube can win a decision because of good faith removal, then a messageboard user simply linking back to youtube should not be any issue either.......especially if a notice is sent to Kori and she immediately removes the link.

This is how it currently is and there is nothing in this new senate bill that changes this to make it tougher on her prove good faith usage.

Even if this bill passes, youtube and embedding of the youtube vids will still be around just the same, no matter how much anyone still claims they won't.

What's the point of the bill then? To go after those who embed/upload links to make money for a commercial site?

[ElNono]

but if you can prove you aren't willfully infringing, you will not face any kind of criminal charges.

That's the difference.

Seriously, that makes no sense in the chain of events. You either knew whether the work was yours or licensed to you or not when you did what you did (upload/embed/copy, which you did willfully). That's why claiming "I didn't know" it's basically not an option post-facto. You could argue you did it under a fair use exception, but that's a different defense where you're agreeing that you did infringe but are exempt from liability.


I figure you let us in on this tidbit in order to let us know that you work with copyright protection as part of your job.

If you are not a copyright expert, just say so and I will be man enough to admit I was wrong on that one.

It would explain some of your posts if you aren't.

My first hand personal experience with this came a few years ago when I was threatened to be sued for allegedly violating the DMCA anti-circumvention clause. Obviously, after hiring a specialized lawyer, burning through 6K+ and months, our differences were resolved amicably without any lawsuits needing to be filed. What I learned from that experience is that when you're paying $150/hr you better have an idea of what you're talking about and you need to be asking the right questions.

On the business side, we run a small software development firm, and we have both turn-key solutions and mainstream commercial software. Some of which has been popular enough to be pirated. We hold some trademarks, licenses and patents. We've partnered with both small companies and large corporations (ie: Acclaim Entertainment, which I can mention because they're no more). We've had to do IP transfers, issue take down notices, resolve trademark disputes. When you get to the finer details of a contract or the shit hits the fan, we go with the expert: a specialized lawyer. But again, you wan to go there as the last option, since in a lot of circumstances, the cost can easily outdo the benefits.

In what we do, knowing your IP rights is part of the bread and butter of the business. When we require expertise, we go to a lawyer. I have no problem telling you I'm not an expert. We hire them when we need to, and whenever somebody asks me what to do in a similar situation, I recommend the same.

[ElNono]

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2007/07/youtube-embedding-and-copyright

What's noteworthy on that article for Kori is that it would be a good idea for her to file the"Copyright Agent" paperwork if she haven't already.

[Blake]

What's the point of the bill then? To go after those who embed/upload links to make money for a commercial site?


To amend the criminal penalty provision for criminal infringement of a copyright, and for other purposes.

It added the words "public performance" under criminal infringement after "reproduction" and "distribution".

Proponents of the bill claim that it is aimed at illegal streaming.

The concern that Mike Masnick had in the original Techdirt piece is that "public performance" is not clearly defined.


Furthermore, as we suspected, in the full text of the bill, "performance" is not clearly defined. This is the really troubling part. Everyone keeps insisting that this is targeted towards "streaming" websites, but is streaming a "performance"? If so, how does embedding play into this? Is the site that hosts the content guilty of performing? What about the site that merely linked to and/or embedded the video (linking and embedding are technically effectively the same thing). Without clear definitions, we run into problems pretty quickly.

I agree that it should be better defined.

But he goes on to make the following assumption that embedding does mean "public performance"


So yeah. If you embed a YouTube video that turns out to be infringing, and more than 10 people view it because of your link... you could be facing five years in jail. This is, of course, ridiculous, and suggests (yet again) politicians who are regulating a technology they simply do not understand.

......when he just previously said it's not clearly defined.

he also asks:


Should it really be a criminal act to embed a YouTube video, even if you don't know it was infringing...?

to which the answer is basically 'no'........ whether the bill passes or not.


Of course, conspiracy hack sites like infowars picked it up, ran with it, and here we are discussing it......even though no legitimate news sources have given it a second glance.

[jack sommerset]

pot --> kettle --> black, faggot.

Without forced hilarity, gay baiting and totally unearned chest-thumping, your posting here would soon slow to a trickle or cease altogether.

:lol

[ElNono]

He makes the connection between embedding and "public performance" because in 90% of the streaming sites that's exactly what's used: An embedded player that plays somebody else stream. The lack of specifying what "public performance" is opens a huge can of worms too, IMO. If you just wanted to go after streamers, you could just specifically mention "live broadcast" or some such.

And BTW, this bill is squarely accommodating the wishes of IP Czar Espinel (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/03/obama-ip-czar-wants-felony-charges-for-illegal-web-streaming.ars), who released her 'wish list' a couple of months ago, back when I created the older thread.

[Winehole23]

:lolAh, thank you.

[Winehole23]

:lol

[symple19]

I'm in big trouble...

on second thought, maybe the record companies should be paying me

[Winehole23]

:tu

[Winehole23]

Am I infringing on the profitability of Fame, or enhancing its visibility in my peer group?

You decide.

iOLZsgE40oQ

[Winehole23]

Marketing the product for free, as it were.

[Winehole23]

A message of truth. Its time is overdue.

[fyatuk]

The concern that Mike Masnick had in the original Techdirt piece is that "public performance" is not clearly defined.

Just to point out, the legal definition of "public performance" is this:


To perform or display a work ‘‘publicly’’ means—
(1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered; or
(2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of the work to a place specified by clause (1) or to the public, by means of any device or process, whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times.

Whether that's clear or not, I'll leave for others to judge. Just providing the definition from within the US code.

[ElNono]

Just to point out, the legal definition of "public performance" is this:

Whether that's clear or not, I'll leave for others to judge. Just providing the definition from within the US code.

Thanks. :tu

[Blake]

apparently ASCAP has been trying to get 3rd party embedders to get public performance licenses....


.......Apparently, the ASCAP believes that “giving and obtaining permission” no longer includes embedding videos on Web sites, as the ASCAP currently wants to charge individual Web sites a fee for using these videos — even after they won a $1.6 million lawsuit from YouTube in 2009 over the licensing of music watched on the site. The lawsuit includes a stipulation that YouTube pays the ASCAP $70,000 a month, in addition to the $1.6 million, so viewers can watch music videos uploaded to the site, according to a report by Techdirt.

Now, the ASCAP is setting its sites on those who share these YouTube videos on blogs and other Web sites — even though the embedded clips are used as a link to the original file and the view count still registers with YouTube. The team at YouTube recently sent out this memo on the topic.

“There have been a few questions in the forum regarding ASCAP and we wanted to provide our perspective on the issue. We have become aware of yet another misguided effort on the part of ASCAP to double dip — this time by pressuring third-party websites which embed YouTube videos to pay royalties to ASCAP. We believe there is no legal basis for ASCAP's position because YouTube itself is currently licensed by ASCAP pursuant to its application made under the antitrust consent decree that governs ASCAP's operations. The license requested by YouTube covers all US public performances of ASCAP music in YouTube videos from YouTube's servers all the way through to the end user, regardless of whether a third-party website is embedding the YouTube player. We believe that YouTube has already cleared any necessary public performance rights for US playbacks of ASCAP songs, and ASCAP's attempt to collect an additional payment from another party for the very same stream is not credible.
Regards,
YouTube Team"

Hopefully this attack from the ASCAP will be thrown out if it ever reaches a court of law.......

http://www.somanymp3s.com/ascap-youtube-fight-embedded-videos/

apparently it's not going so well for ASCAP in that regard

[Blake]

Spewstalk needs to ban the giggling faggot face from ever being used in here again.


:lol

"God I wish I knew how to quit you, giggling faggot face emoticon"

[ElNono]

That ASCAP claim (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090709/0109185492.shtml) and the YouTube ruling (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090519/1127454934.shtml) dates back to 2009.

I don't think YouTube has a similar arrangement with the MPAA or other video content producers though.

[Blake]

That ASCAP claim (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090709/0109185492.shtml) and the YouTube ruling (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090519/1127454934.shtml) dates back to 2009.

I don't think YouTube has a similar arrangement with the MPAA or other video content producers though.

right, ASCAP went after 3rd party embedders two years ago to get licenses and two years later they still do not have those licenses.

[ElNono]

right, ASCAP went after 3rd party embedders two years ago to get licenses and two years later they still do not have those licenses.

As explained back then, they seemingly licensed the right as part of the $70,000 a month they receive from YouTube out of their successful litigation.

It actually makes a case that embedding can be construed as a "public performance" requiring a license (since YouTube is paying for it). Now, ASCAP deals mostly with the music industry. Not quite sure what's the equivalent for the movie industry.

[Blake]

It actually makes a case that embedding can be construed as a "public performance" requiring a license (since YouTube is paying for it).

They apparently made a pretty weak case in this instance, but at this time, it's gonna depend on who you ask.


....First, it's important to understand what an embedded YouTube video is -- it's a link. Just a link. Nothing but a link. In fact, here's the entire html code needed to embed EFF's Corruptibles video into a blog:

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8-5INcUuoEs"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8-5INcUuoEs" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Taking a look at the actual code makes one thing obvious: no copy of the YouTube video is being stored on your server (only the HTML code for the embed). The video stays on, and is streamed from, YouTube's servers....

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2007/07/youtube-embedding-and-copyright

It's why in this day and age, "public performance" needs to be more specifically defined than just leaving it to two lousy wide open definitions.

especially if they are going to allow for criminal prosecution of such.

[ElNono]

They apparently made a pretty weak case in this instance, but at this time, it's gonna depend on who you ask.

It's why in this day and age, "public performance" needs to be more specifically defined than just leaving it to two lousy wide open definitions.

especially if they are going to allow for criminal prosecution of such.

Absolutely agree. And I do believe that embed = link, as the EFF mentioned.
Now, clarifying anything just isn't in the big media best interests though. Any and every loophole available that can be used as leverage to extract one more payment is a plus. And with the government seemingly in bed with them, I just can't see anybody opposing them.

[fyatuk]

It's why in this day and age, "public performance" needs to be more specifically defined than just leaving it to two lousy wide open definitions.

especially if they are going to allow for criminal prosecution of such.

Breaking a command down to it's source code to classify it as a simpler thing is wrong. In the end, everything breaks down to 1's and 0's anyway. Yes, anyone who knows anything about how the web works knows that embedding is a specialty type of linking. But there's a fundamental difference in execution between generic linking and embedding.

Generic linking redirects you to a site.

Embedding shows you the content from another site.

Embedding a video clearly falls under clause 2 of the public performance definition, as long as the site that embeds the video is publically accessible.

The question is whether more generic linking also does. You can make an argument for that based on the wording of clause 2, since linking could be construed as "otherwise communicating," if you want to take a vary liberal interpretation. There are several ways to argue that on either side.

[Blake]

Breaking a command down to it's source code to classify it as a simpler thing is wrong. In the end, everything breaks down to 1's and 0's anyway. Yes, anyone who knows anything about how the web works knows that embedding is a specialty type of linking. But there's a fundamental difference in execution between generic linking and embedding.

Generic linking redirects you to a site.

Embedding shows you the content from another site.

Embedding a video clearly falls under clause 2 of the public performance definition, as long as the site that embeds the video is publically accessible.

The question is whether more generic linking also does. You can make an argument for that based on the wording of clause 2, since linking could be construed as "otherwise communicating," if you want to take a vary liberal interpretation. There are several ways to argue that on either side.

Yeah, I can see how embedding can fall under clause 2.

I can also see how embedding can be seen as just slightly more of a public performance in that manner than generic linking to the clip. The difference in the amount of effort that a viewer can see the clip is just one extra mouse click.

It's why "public performance" needs to be more clearly defined under different types.

[fyatuk]

Yeah, I can see how embedding can fall under clause 2.

I can also see how embedding can be seen as just slightly more of a public performance in that manner than generic linking to the clip. The difference in the amount of effort that a viewer can see the clip is just one extra mouse click.

It's why "public performance" needs to be more clearly defined under different types.

I can definitely agree with that. Legal definitions are often extremely vague and allow way too much leeway.

Reading through the definitions sections of the US code is a study in speaking vaguely.

[LnGrrrR]

Whether that's clear or not, I'll leave for others to judge. Just providing the definition from within the US code.

I wuld argue that part 2 is a little fuzzy.



(2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of the work to a place specified by clause (1) or to the public, by means of any device or process, whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times.



If this is the definition provided, could anything on a website/the Internet be considered a "private" performance? (Obviously not counting stuff saved on a server or some private storage.)

[LnGrrrR]

It's why in this day and age, "public performance" needs to be more specifically defined than just leaving it to two lousy wide open definitions.

especially if they are going to allow for criminal prosecution of such.

Agreed, but good luck defining that down.

[LnGrrrR]

I can also see how embedding can be seen as just slightly more of a public performance in that manner than generic linking to the clip. The difference in the amount of effort that a viewer can see the clip is just one extra mouse click.


Embedding can also allow one to view videos they might not be able to. (Say, for instance, a website was blocked by a local proxy; one could embed the video in a site that was allowed.)

[Blake]

Agreed, but good luck defining that down.

at this rate it might be 2021 before they implement definitions that make sense for 2011.

[Blake]

Embedding can also allow one to view videos they might not be able to. (Say, for instance, a website was blocked by a local proxy; one could embed the video in a site that was allowed.)

sure.

for the purposes of the thread, in that case, by blocking the original website, the administrators of the local proxy helped strengthen their chances of being found not guilty if felony charges were ever brought on them.

[ElNono]

A new spin on this:

Copyright Crackdown Threatens Youtube Lip-Syncing (http://www.foxcharlotte.com/news/top-stories/Copyright-CrackdownYoutube-Lipsyncing--123788699.html)

[greyforest]

A new spin on this:

Copyright Crackdown Threatens Youtube Lip-Syncing (http://www.foxcharlotte.com/news/top-stories/Copyright-CrackdownYoutube-Lipsyncing--123788699.html)

the article conveniently doesn't mention it's a proposed felony