Quote:
Originally Posted by Nautilus
You can still use your own host, not a public service, to post those of your parodies that push the boundaries of previously accepted fair use practices. That's still well balanced imo - you can post fair use materials that are within the commonly accepted boundaries at public service sites like youtube, and if you want to try something new that may or may not fly in court as a fair use, use your own paid webhost.
I thought courts already reward defendands with the compensation of their legal fees at the expense of plaintiff, when they find fair use defence is valid. Isn't that enough of a counter-balance?
|
the problem is that in post case the person actually making the fair use doesn't make any money from that act. The 43 people who used the downfall clip to make fun of xbox live, burning man etc were doing it because they wanted to express themselves. They didn't make money from it. That is exactly why they didn't fight the takedown notices their was no monetary incentive to do so. The best they could ever get was their cost covered.
If that burden was shifted to youtube they would have even less incentive because the proof that video was not making money would be gone. The copyright holder could argue that they are fighting to protect their ad revenue. making it more expensive to fight and more difficult to win.
A profit (not just a cost recovery) motive strong enough to compensate for that significant addition of work would have to be put in place. 3x is what the current laws (if applied) state is the penalty and therefore that should be the minimum cost for a false takedown request.