Reply With Quote
I think Blake also isn't considering that Viacom probably can hire better lawyers than Mr Smith down the block.
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).
I think Blake also isn't considering that Viacom probably can hire better lawyers than Mr Smith down the block.
Interesting.1st backpedal
Explain how you think I'm backpedaling.
so you believe "user" automatically means "uploader".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.
No wonder you think I'm backpedaling.
let me know if you need the colloquial definition of the word "user".
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.
yes, your link to a professor's class lecture draft was pretty 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/
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.
This thread is about embedding a youtube clip.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.
Embedding does not equal uploading.
Thanks for confirming that you really have not known what you are talking.
So now you are trying to tell me what I have been telling you.Under the law (not colloquially
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.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).
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 le.)
In a nuts ,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.
lol at youtube being extinct if this bill passes
I think LnGrrrR is lost.
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)
You don't need lawyers when you act in "good faith", remember?
So now you are trying to tell me what I have been telling you.
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 le 17 U.S.C. Sec. 512. Their users are not.
I have heard that forced backpedaling is especially hurtful on the ass.Under the law (not colloquially
Since I consider you now to be educated on it, please give your opinion on just how much it hurts.
but if you can prove you aren't willfully infringing, you will not face any kind of criminal charges.
That's the difference.
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.
Spewstalk needs to ban the giggling got face from ever being used in here again.
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?
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.
Depends on the case, but google/youtube's lawyers have basically already done the work for Mr. Smith.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 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...-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.
Last edited by Blake; 06-06-2011 at 02:46 PM.
pot --> kettle --> black, got.
Without forced hilarity, gay baiting and totally unearned chest-thumping, your posting here would soon slow to a trickle or cease altogether.
What's the point of the bill then? To go after those who embed/upload links to make money for a commercial site?
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.
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-cir vention 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 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 cir stances, 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.
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.
It added the words "public performance" under criminal infringement after "reproduction" and "distribution".To amend the criminal penalty provision for criminal infringement of a copyright, and for other purposes.
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.
I agree that it should be better 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.
But he goes on to make the following assumption that embedding does mean "public performance"
......when he just previously said it's not clearly defined.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.
he also asks:
to which the answer is basically 'no'........ whether the bill passes or not.Should it really be a criminal act to embed a YouTube video, even if you don't know it was infringing...?
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.
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, who released her 'wish list' a couple of months ago, back when I created the older thread.
Ah, thank you.
Last edited by Winehole23; 06-07-2011 at 03:26 AM.
I'm in big trouble...
on second thought, maybe the record companies should be paying me
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
