The DMCA and safe harbours is certainly why Google makes so much and
pays so little from YT. So much copyright violating material gets
uploaded there they just sit back and say "If you want it taken down you
either play whack-a-mole or you allow us to run ads next to it and pay
you a fraction of what you'd get elsewhere and if you don't like the
deal well we'll run ads against anyway, and BTW you need to license all
your stuff for use on our paid service again at a fraction of that you'd
get elsewhere." IOW Google use safe-harbour and the DMCA as a form of
protection racket.
This isn't one user it is several 100 million of them.
Google also know that most independent creators cannot afford to
instigate a federal copyright case against some John Doe. WMF also knows
that, which is why they still hold those stolen Macaque photos and
taunted the photographer in London. The proposed copyright small claims
court may fix some of those issues. Nevertheless contrary to fantasy
most creators aren't looking to use copyright as a lottery ticket, they
simply want the violations to stop, and that when a site is informed
that X is not licensed, that X isn't republished on that same site again.
This is 2016 and digital finger printing for images, music, and film is
established technology. Major websites should no longer be able to hide
behind a DMCA whack-a-Mole. So safe-harbour in the first instance, but
once informed keep the stuff off the site, or lose the safe harbour.
On 19/12/2016 21:37, Todd Allen 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 <mailto: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-keating-youtube-google-music
<https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jan/27/zoe-keating-youtube-google-music>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines>
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
<mailto:Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org
<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>
