I think it might be useful to focus on how any of the proposed changes to the law would affect Wikipedia/Wikimedia specifically, apart from the broader philosophical discussion. Is there a good link for exactly what changes to the safe harbor laws are being considered, as opposed to the more general statement that there's a discussion of scaling them back?
Thanks, Newyorkbrad/IBM On 12/20/16, Lilburne <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >> <[email protected] <mailto:[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-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: [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]> >> Unsubscribe: >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l >> <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>, >> <mailto:[email protected] >> <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>
