The Communications Decency Act of 1996, Section 230, mentioned in Todd's
email, is the subject of a recent lawsuit:
http://fortune.com/2016/12/20/orlando-shooting-google-facebook-twitter/


Ariel


On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 11:37 PM, Todd Allen <toddmal...@gmail.com> wrote:

> What you posted there regards contract terms between the artist and
> Youtube. That's between them to fight out. If they don't like Youtube's
> terms, they can take their stuff elsewhere.
>
> DMCA safe harbor has nothing to do with contracts. It means that, if you
> run an interactive web site (essentially, anything where users are allowed
> to post stuff), you can't be held liable if one of your users posts
> copyrighted material. The user still can be, but you, as the site operator,
> cannot.
>
> In exchange, you must provide a way that a copyright holder can contact
> you, using a standard method, and tell you that they've found material that
> infringes their copyright. You must then take that material down (within a
> certain period, I think ten days) and provide notice to the user that
> you've done so. The user can then either file a "counter notice" if they
> believe the material is not infringing, which you'd send back to the
> copyright holder if they choose to do so, or drop it, in which case the
> material stays gone. If a counter notice is filed, the copyright holder can
> at that time either take the matter up in court directly with the user, or
> drop it. If they don't file in court after a counter notice, you can
> automatically reinstate the material after a certain period of time. If the
> DMCA notice was malicious or fraudulent, the safe harbor provision also
> establishes liability against the person or entity who filed it. But as
> long as you file those procedures, you, as the site operator, are immune
> from liability for either the material being present to start with or for
> it being taken down.
>
> Without that protection, no one in their right mind would operate an
> interactive web site, at least not in the US. It protects everything from
> classic car hobbyist forums operated by a few people at their own cost, to
> sites like Youtube and Facebook. None of those would be possible without
> it. Or, at the very least, they would have to be operated from countries
> which are, shall we say, much more lax on copyright enforcement. That's bad
> for everyone, including the copyright holders--they no longer would have an
> effective method of getting infringements taken down.
>
> Since Wikimedia is DMCA-compliant, that means that, say, AP or Getty can't
> sue Wikimedia if a user uploads a bunch of their images to Commons. They
> would have to find and sue that user. And of course, they could file DMCA
> requests to have their stuff removed. But since WMF is much easier to find
> and has much deeper pockets, if they had the option of suing WMF, I
> guarantee you that they would. The only thing that stops them from that is
> safe harbor.
>
> That, and Section 230 of the CDA (which excludes liability from site
> operators for other types of illegal conduct like threats) are, without
> exaggeration, the very reason that interactive web services can exist at
> all. Without those, you'd be accepting liability for anything a user of
> your site might choose to do. You'd have to be insane to do that.
>
> Todd
>
> On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Lilburne <lilbu...@tygers-of-wrath.net>
> wrote:
>
> > On 19/12/2016 16:45, David Gerard wrote:
> >
> >> For various reasons * I follow music industry news. One drum the record
> >> industry has been beating *hard* in the past year is attempts to reduce
> >> the
> >> DMCA "safe harbor" provisions in order to squeeze more money from
> YouTube.
> >> It's been a running theme through 2016.
> >>
> >>
> > Oh dear! If this gets traction poor little Google, won't be able to run
> > their protection racket any longer. It is so worrying that a little
> cellist
> > might bring a $400 billion company to its knees.
> >
> > https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jan/27/zoe-keati
> > ng-youtube-google-music
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> > i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Reply via email to