Yea probably, but let me re-read it first. On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 2:47 PM, Alex Leavitt <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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 > > -- 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
