I believe cases (like Veoh) have established that a company has to do what is financially and reasonably possible to filter content and eliminate infringing work in order to qualify for safe harbor.
-Adi On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 3:17 PM, Alex Kozak <[email protected]>wrote: > There is no clear legal answer to that question, although in my cyberlaw > class a year or so ago I took the position in a research paper that recent > court decisions have *in effect* required services to adopt filtering > practices (else they faced increased risk to claims of secondary liability > for infringement). > > I should probably go into more detail but I'd have to go back and read my > own paper :) > > On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 12:11 PM, Kevin Donovan <[email protected]>wrote: > >> A willingness to technically foreclose fair use with content filtering >> >> software shielded Google/YouTube from liability -- but it caused >> >> widespread confusion and frustration among users. >> >> >> I'm relatively ignorant on this, but isn't Google/YouTube not required by >> law to filter content? Don't they do so to appease studios that might be >> willing to partner with them formally? So, it wasn't the willingness to >> filter that won the case for them, but the DMCA which recognizes the >> inability to monitor, effectively, either through humans or algorithms, UGC, >> right? >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 3:06 PM, Kevin Driscoll >> <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> > Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 19:11:34 -0400 >>> > From: Adi Kamdar <[email protected]> >>> > Subject: [FC-discuss] Judge Sides with Google in Viacom Case >>> > >>> > https://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/24/technology/24google.html?hp >>> > >>> > tl;dr: Judge said Google has "safe harbor" protections, so Viacom can't >>> sue >>> > for their stuff being uploaded. Viacom plans on appealing. >>> >>> >>> >>> I have mixed feelings over this result. I am happy to see a ridiculous >>> claim thrown out but I can't forget the costs that were incurred to >>> maintain that YouTube's "safe harbor" status. >>> >>> A willingness to technically foreclose fair use with content filtering >>> software shielded Google/YouTube from liability -- but it caused >>> widespread confusion and frustration among users. >>> >>> AFAIK, content-filtering software is a crude tool that cannot >>> differentiate remix, criticism, parody, or academic uses from >>> copyright infringement. >>> >>> I deeply appreciate the steps that YouTube has made over the past year >>> to integrate tools that help users resist intimidating >>> cease-and-desist notices (e.g. a Chilling Effects-style DMCA >>> Counter-Notice form) but the present situation still satisfies the >>> interests of a select few "content owners" at the expense of popular >>> participatory culture. >>> >>> Popular culture on the internet absolutely will continue to flourish, >>> startle, and inspire - bad policy can't stop it - but it hurts to see >>> rich potential stymied by FUD ... only to be declared legal years >>> later. >>> >>> Kevin >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Discuss mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>> FAQ: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Kevin Donovan >> Georgetown '11: SFS >> 630.849.8285 >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >> FAQ: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss >> >> > > > -- > Alex Kozak > Program Assistant > Creative Commons > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > FAQ: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss > >
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss FAQ: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss
