Sorry if my points have already been addressed....... I think a (rightly) proud boast of HPR is that there is no editorial oversight or censorship of any episode. In other words, nobody listens to any episode to approve it (or otherwise) before it is made available for download. Does this have to change now?
Perhaps an explicit rule from now on needs to be no music of any kind other than the approved header and footer jingles. It may even be possible to scan an episode to check whether that rule is being broken without anybody having to actually listen to it, thereby maintaining the general "no censorship" principle. Of course copyrighted spoken word clips may be included, and I can't see any way of automating a check for that. There must surely be a level at which the website "manager" cannot be held responsible for copyright infringement. I could take the text of a presentation from some obscure conference, say, transcribed from a Youtube clip or some other source, and present it as all my own original work. How could Ken or anybody else be expected to detect or even check for that? There must be a point at which responsibility passes to the person posting the episode. Is there no concept for "mitigating circumstances" in these regulations? If not, then every single HPR episode presents a risk of unintended and unknowing copyright infringement. While none of us would want to be on the receiving end, hopefully the regulations will be tested in court before too long and some real world precedents set to act as benchmarks for what is reasonable and what is not. Nige
_______________________________________________ Hpr mailing list [email protected] http://hackerpublicradio.org/mailman/listinfo/hpr_hackerpublicradio.org
