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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > 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: [email protected] > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > New messages to: [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
