Re: Jim Gilmore and Proposed Copyright Legislation

[Smokin3215]

Yuk, not in favor of more rules to an already over complicated process/issue.

There should just be a gap between when a company complains and when the vid is taken off so the uploader can respond. E.G., if a vid has been on youtube for a year, and a company claims C.R. violation, then the uploader has a month to respond before its taken down. If its ben up for a week, then the own has a week to respond.

[DClaudeKatz]

I think your idea has a third benefit, which is that it would force copyright owners to evaluate the real economic benefits to them of enforcing their copyright in various contexts (since the process of enforcement will become costly, either because it will require more resources or because there will be costly mistakes). As it is, I think they often just do what their lawyers tell them without really considering whether they're getting any real advantage.

[Razela]

Yep! That's exactly my point. If the costs are internalized, they'll only claim it when it's real.

[DClaudeKatz]

I'm saying they may not claim it even when it is real, because there is a cost to reliable verification. In many cases, it's not clear to me that enforcing copyrights is really in the interest of the copyright holders, but if it can be done cheaply (by leaving verification to the accused violators), and the lawyers say do it, they do it. If there were a significant cost, they would really have to think about whether there are benefits.

[tedhuntington]

Good issue Razela. Copyright is so ridiculous, patent only lasts 10 years. We are moving to a society of total free info. How about more of your cymbal stylings?

[undogg]

LiberalViewer is a YT user that, apparantly, had a struggle with FOX news over copyright. This is not much different. Raz, if you had legal, licensing or research costs associated with the acquistion of your right to use the music that YouTube and the 'Music Corp.' prevented you from, don't you think it is the right thing to ask for those costs back? If the next music artist just decides to 'lay down and take it' do you think that will help the case for future Big Corp. breaches of contracts?

[pzottolo]

copyright violations are more kneejerk reactions than anything else. youtube (and other companies) take the easy route and put the video into limbo while it gets worked out. ever heard of the YT user liberalviewer?

[Razela]

No, what is that?

[JoeFelice]

PART 2: You're protected by the DMCA against wrongful takedown. You can sue them for whatever amount you like, and then convince a judge that it's equivalent to the harm they caused.

[Razela]

Yah, but they didn't cause me any monetary harm and the "harm" caused by having my video taken down for 4 months was pretty negligible. Anyways, I don't want to punish anyone anyways, I just think people should have to be 100% sure before sending a DMCA notice to someone.

[JoeFelice]

PART 1: Hi Razela. I work in the copyright industry. When a copyright owner sends you a DMCA cease and desist letter, the government is not involved. It's just one private entity contacting another. The government would become involved if it went to court.

[Razela]

Thanks for the extra information! I was obviously mistaken.

[Rob187ok]

youtube video and sound quality is miles away from DVD or CD so in most cases the whole issue regarding coppyright seems silly. Most people will pay if they want the real thing.

[j0eg0d]

Corporations misinterpret the spread of information OR SHARING as copyright infringements. I think what needs to change is the perception towards intent. See just because we upload a song doesn't mean we're attempting to make profit off of that song. These corporations need some common sense.

[Razela]

That's another issue that needs to be dealt with, though a much fuzzier one.

[j0eg0d]

I think it will change through public opinion. This isn't anything new, as the Recording Industry has argued against everything from jukeboxes to radio broadcasts. Eventually they'll learn that online access doesn't discourage people from buying the albums.

[evanschmitt2]

Okay, I see your point, -companies should not arbitrarily send out official violations notices without first contacting the user or in some other way investigating the violation. But, let's use your experience as an example: if you had posted the video and it was indeed a copyright violation and all you get is a 'warning' from the company what's to stop people from knowingly posting protected material every 2 seconds?

[Razela]

Well, then they could report me and I legally would have to take it down, as happens now when people illegally post copyrighted material. If I didn't take it down, the company could take me to court over it.

[falsificationism]

Your idea is prima facie appealing. I do have a couple of questions though.

1. Isn't $200 chump change to the large corporations?

2. I worry about the precedent this sets for other similar cases...it is similar to saying to someone who has been wronged, "you can sue...but if you lose your case, you be fined."

If said legislation is worded carefully though, I think my second point might be rendered nugatory.

[Razela]

$200 may not do much for a large corporation, but it will stop a lot of smaller companies. I'm not sure what to do about the really big companies, though if they are putting out a lot of false copyright notices, they could end up with a court case on their hands, which I believe has happened to some companies.

[Razela]

As to your second point, in frivolous lawsuits, typically the person who sues and loses does have to pay the litigation costs of the winning party. I don't think that that is much different from what I am proposing.

[falsificationism]

Touché :)

[Razela]

I just think that no one should send out an official DCMA copyright violation notice unless they are 100% sure that it is a violation of their copyright. However, since there is no cost involved, people/organizations send them out even when they aren't sure there is actually any problem. I don't want to punish people, I just think it would be a good incentive for people to solve their problems on their own before running to the government for help.

[falsificationism]

I certainly agree with you on that. We are really venturing out into uncharted waters with respect to copyright legislation. YouTube and other file sharing sites are completely new to our legal system (and to society).

[falsificationism]

As such, great care ought to be taken to make sure we account for the fact that policies implemented today will have great ramifications on our very near future. Said differently, technology moves VERY fast...faster than laws in a democratic society ever will. We mustn't try to compensate by being imprudent.

[RogCBrand]

That was really interesting Jamie! Even without the permission I don't understand how Copyrights apply to non-profit works. Some kid just posting a video on Youtube isn't the same as someone trying to make money using copyrighted material. Anyway, China churns out bootleg videos & music by the billions. That's where these companies need to focus their energy, not on average people who aren't out to make profit off of someone's work. Nice idea on the fines!