Quote:
Originally Posted by Nautilus
Well yes safe harbor just gets the host out of the way, making it a dispute between the two - a copyright holder and a publisher.
It's an extra work of policing dozens of thousands of sites and filing hundreds of thousands of forms - which is absolutely not sustainable burden for most copyright holders.
Something needs to be changed there, and I think that DMCA should be amended to include the difference between the ISP and the Publisher - Publishers being those who operate sites and make content immediatly availble for surfers, while ISPs being those who provide services for other sites and do not operate them (hosts, billers etc).
Publishers should not be entitled for safe harbor protection anymore, they should be held responsible for making sure that all content they publish at their sites is either licensed or fair use, no matter if they publish it themselves or allow their users to do it. While ISPs should still be protected with the safe harbor.
With that added to DMCA, it'll bring the balance back into the system - fair use is still well protected, but no more loopholes to steal intellectual property under the guise of the safe harbor, if it is no longer provided to the Publishers.
|
except that definition would cause the exact type of censorship that i am complaining about. tube sites would be considered publishers. which means downfall parody would never have been allowed on the tube site in the first place
The eff could never fought for and established the extension to parody that they did.
All those videos would be censored.
if you wanted to something like that you would have to add some sort of serious penalty to prevent that.
Say if you sent a takedown notice for something that was fair use you must pay 3 times the damages asked for or 3 times the income lost which ever is greater(since extending the copyright monopoly to the fair use space would be sherman anti trust violating act). If you failed to pay the fee within 24 hours of ruling all your copyrights would be put into the public domain.
that would create an insentive for publisher like youtube to defend potential fair use.
That would be more balanced then the current DMCA because two companies with deep pockets would be fighting for fair use claims, instead of users getting stomped all over (43 downfall parodies taken down) until a major user rights groups decides to take up the cause and defend what is so clearly non income losing fair use (eff downfall parody).