Interestingly Australia is looking at going towards developing a safe
harbour process within its copyright laws, expand the access of fair use,
make orphan works more accessible along with making it possible for
collection agencies(GLAMs) to use copyrighted works
yes there is opposing positions on this
On 22 December 2016 at 21:41, David Gerard <dger...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 21 December 2016 at 02:53, Newyorkbrad <newyorkb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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?
> To further answer your question, this morning I saw these (access
> while you can):
> "The real problem with YouTube, from a music industry perspective, is
> that it won't pay the aforementioned minimum guarantees. Therefore
> from a revenue perspective, the continued boom in people streaming
> music on YouTube is irrelevant, what matters is the site’s ad sales,
> which have been pretty flat of late. If the music industry gets
> copyright law re-written, YouTube could possibly be forced into paying
> minimum guarantees, which would force it to sell more ads, or limit
> the amount of music users both upload and play."
> - that is, they literally want guaranteed free money.
> "The music industry doesn’t have a problem with the basic principle of
> the safe harbour, just with the kinds of companies which now claim
> protection. In particular, it argues that user-upload websites should
> not be covered by the safe harbour. And while there are lots of sites
> of that kind, the real concern is YouTube."
> - and one of those sites is Wikimedia; their aim directly targets us.
> "This would be frustrating in itself but there’s a bigger problem, the
> music rights sector argues. The existence of YouTube is stopping
> people from signing up to the subscription music services."
> Though even they note: "Yes, there may be support, but what does
> reform actually look like? What words can legislators use to force
> YouTube’s hand, without causing collateral damage? Which is to say,
> could you achieve the music industry’s objectives without making every
> social network liable for every ‘borrowed’ photo that is shared on the
> The problem comes down to the music industry trying for free money:
> "Though in Content-ID, YouTube already operates an industry-leading
> takedown system. And it already pays the majority of its ad income to
> the rights owners. The problem isn’t so much how the value is shared,
> as it is the lack of value to start with."
> So basically, Wikimedia needs to make sure it's representing itself to
> the EU as well. In whatever form.
> - d.
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> New messages to: Wikimediaemail@example.com
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
President Wikimedia Australia
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to: Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org