View Single Post
Old 08-15-2009, 06:51 AM  
gideongallery
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 7,082
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nautilus View Post
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.
btw a host like mojo who lets a user post an html page with a flash video embedded would also "make content immediatly availble for surfers"

try uploading content on your domain via ftp and then see how quickly after is done you can see the web page in your browser.

So how exactly does your "make content immediatly availble for surfers" protect isp services like hosting.
__________________

“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak
gideongallery is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote