Quote:
Originally Posted by Nautilus
Exactly. What you do not understand is that immunity through conter notification and immunity through the safe harbor are the two different things - the first is for users, the second is for their ISPs. Users can't claim safe harbor defence, ISPs cannot argue fair use.
|
wrong the immunity after counter notification is for the host too. after the counter notice has been filed by the fair user of content the host goes back to having full immunity for hosting the content. The act of accepting the liablity if the fair user is ruled against eliminates the liablity for the host.
But the point is it an a to b to c condition.
If the host is liable from the very begining (eliminate the safe harbor provision) they can only protect themselves by not hosting potentially fair use stuff. They most over step in favor of the copyright holders.
Since fair use is supposed to take precedence in the case of a dispute between the two that would be reversing the fundamental bases of copyright act.
You need the safe harbor so the content will be online long enough so that counter notice can extend fair use to where it needs to be.
Without safe harbor parody would never have been extended by the eff to include just changing the subtitles.
Bogus arguements like robbie that the only way you could use his content to make a parody music video "internet killed the porno star" (protected fair use) was to not use his content at all. (dress up in a wig and pretend to be claudia marie).
the proof that it is fair (did not in and of it self cost a sale and therefore meets condition 4) would not exist without proven example of hosting happening.