Yes, agreed. One of the claims I made in my research was that the requirement to filter essentially eliminates the possibility of certain business models that might be based on the fair use of copyrighted content.
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 12:51 PM, Kevin Driscoll <[email protected]>wrote: > It is certainly unclear but my sense is the same as Adi and Alex's in > part because of these two passages from s512: > > "A service provider shall not be liable [...] > (1)(A) does not have actual knowledge that the material or activity is > infringing; > (B) in the absence of such actual knowledge, is not aware of facts or > circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent; or > (C) upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to > remove, or disable access to, the material;" > > and > > "(1) Accommodation of technology. — The limitations on liability > established by this section shall apply to a service provider only if > the service provider — > > (A) has adopted and reasonably implemented, and informs subscribers > and account holders of the service provider's system or network of, a > policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances > of subscribers and account holders of the service provider's system or > network who are repeat infringers; and > > (B) accommodates and does not interfere with standard technical measures. > > (2) Definition. — As used in this subsection, the term “standard > technical measures” means technical measures that are used by > copyright owners to identify or protect copyrighted works and —" > > http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#512 > > This sets up an lose-lose situation for Google between the needs of > their users and the pressures the few large content industries. In > sum, we might say that Google has done an OK job walking that > tightrope - but the situation is a terrible one from the start. > > Driscoll > > > > On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 12:11 PM, Kevin Donovan <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> 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? > _______________________________________________ > 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
