The free distribution of copyrighted material on
the Internet is very widespread. I personally copy and paste entire
articles from the New York Times on nonprofit sites like The Immortality
Institute www.imminst.org
The thinking is that since no one profits from this
site, free sharing of information by people who have obtained it legally isn't a
serious commercial offense.
I'm not sure the lawyers would agree with
that. However, no one I know of has gotten any flack for violations of
copyright when used in this manner.
Randolfe (Randy) Wicker
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 8:22
AM
Subject: [videoblogging] Re: GUBA
There are many different sites on the internet that offer a
web
interface to binary newsgroup (usenet) posts.
However, most of
the files on usenet have nothing to do with
videoblogging, they are largely
copyrighted material, eg films and tv
shows, that should not be
redistributed on the internet at all. For
whatever reasons, the RIAA &
friends havent focussed on newsgroups
much yet, and they dont get mentioned
by the mainstream media hardly
ever, dunno if the strategy is to pretend
they dont exist or what.
Anyway your blog isnt on usenet. Videospider
is lying in its FAQ about
where its material comes from. Clearly much of it
is from usenet, but
they also appear to be leeching content direct from
peoples websites,
which is what seems to have happened in the case of your
videoblog.
Therefore it will be a wild goosechase to think that every
usenet
service out there is leeching your content, they arent. Its just
the
videospider FAQ being misleading.
Now if some individual did
upload your video to usenet (which as of
writing is not so), Im not sure
what you could do about that.
usenet/newsgroups are usually available for
free (via newsreader
software & your ISP), so the person who stuck your
stuff on usenet
isnt violating CC non-commercial terms. Services that make
usenet
available via an easy web interface just consider themselves to
be
providing a service, and say that the actual content is beyond
their
control. One day the law will probably adress this anomoly, but Id
not
expect videoblogging to lead the charge as every day there are
already
$millions of pounds worth of MSM copyrighted content flying
around
newsgroups, and the USENET is very large and redistributed by
many
large companies (ISPs mostly). Likely the claim is that the
original
person who put the stuff onto Usenet is the violator, and it is
they
who action should be taken against, rather than usenet as a
whole.
In conclusion Id say that videospide is just a typical leech
like
we've talked about before, and that usenet is not currently a
threat
to videobloggers. If I had a videoblog that was only available
via
subscription for a fee, or I ran a porn website, Id probably
monitor
usenet as its the sort of thing that such material is likely to
be
illegally redistributed via. I would look at the headers of
the
relevant usenet posts to determine who did the uploading, and
then
consider them the offender, rather than the impossible task of
chasing
down every usenet provider.
Steve of Elbows
--- In
[email protected], Steve Garfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> GUBA is another site that charges you to watch Pictures
and Videos from
> Usenet, All for only $14.95 / mo..
>
>
<http://www.guba.com/>
>
> Not cool.
> --Steve
> --
> Home Page - http://stevegarfield.com
> Video
Blog - http://stevegarfield.blogs.com
>
Text Blog - http://offonatangent.blogspot.com
>
> Like Paul Revere, leading the citizen's media
revolution.
>
SPONSORED LINKS
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
|
