Embedding youtubes could be a felony? WTF?

[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?
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.

[Blake]

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

lol good faith

lol the pwnage continues

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 cons uted 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?
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.

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

lol

[ElNono]

lol the pwnage continues

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

Still don't know what you're talking about

lol good faith

[ElNono]

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

ignoring you
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 cons uted 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 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 en led 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-Copy...aims-Dismissed

lol further pwnage

lol the end of youtube

[ElNono]

lol sure I do.

lol Viacom v Google

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

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.

[mouse]

Let youtube be s 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]

Viacom v Google protects Google, not the user

you mean the uploader of the video?

nobody would disagree with that

good faith

yes

Viacom v Google predates this bill

this bill would have little to no bearing on that ruling

"youtube would become extinct"

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

you don't know what I'm talking about

grasping at straws trying to save face

not at all

still mad

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?

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 good faith

what the 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 le 18, if the infringement was committed —

http://www.copyright.gov/ le17/92chap5.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 cir stances to his attorney and followed the attorney's advice in good faith.[28]

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

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 , or actively fights against their own interests.

Congratulations, government. Your populous is too uneducated to understand that their cons utional 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]

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

1st backpedal

this bill would have little to no bearing on that ruling

colloquially speaking?
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 would become extinct"
you don't know what I'm talking about

YouTube without users = no YouTube.

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

not at all

more backpedaling

yes, singling me out means apparently you still are

still butthurt because you don't know what you're talking about
colloquial pwnage
furiously looking through Google and still looking like a dumbass
theft
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]

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

hilarious.

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/

hilarious indeed
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"

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 ), 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 nuts , 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 compe ively speaking, YouTube makes little to no sense anymore.