Alex, is it possible to read a copy of that paper? (Other) Alex
--- Alexander Leavitt Researcher Convergence Culture Consortium (Comparative Media Studies, MIT) Microsoft New England Research & Development http://doalchemy.org Twitter: @alexleavitt On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 3:58 PM, Alex Kozak <[email protected]>wrote: > 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 > >
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss FAQ: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss
