Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery
1. you ignored the notwithstanding clause
2. your old definition of publisher "instantly available" would make every host like mojo liable for the actions of their client
3. your new definition is already how the law works, if you can prove that the company itself uploaded the content, without believing they had a right too (ama screwing up on the licience and allowing the behavior and then bitching because it wasn't what he ment the licience to authorize) they have no safe harbor protection.
btw if the free site has all the traffic, being restricted only hosting it yourself is censorship. Just as much as saying you can make your speech but you have to make it in the jail cell where no one can hear you speak.
If no one can hear your parody, even though you have a right to create it, you are being censored.
|
1. Yes I did because it changes nothing - it does not entitle "fair users" with a free hosting of their files too.
Never the document you quoted set a priority for fair use over the rights of copyright holders, simply because it is not logical to set such priorities. Fair use of copyrighted materials can not exist if there's no copyrighted work to use fairly - thus if fair use gets priority which harms copyright holders, it would harm the whole fair use segment too.
2. Old definition was already dismissed in the course of our discussion, why are you still reffering to it. New definition "operate/do not operate" websites I believe is absolutely correct and clearly defines the difference between an ISP and a Publisher.
Mojo host provides a hosting platform but doesn't operate any of the sites they host, thus they're entitled to safe harbor protection; while Google operates Youtube and should be fully responsible for what appears at their site, no matter if they uploaded themselves of their users did it.
3. No it does not how the law works as of now, because sites who're actually publishers are trying to claim they're ISPs and should be protected by safe harbor (see Google vs Viacom). They're trying to push for "blaim it all on users" approach, while as publishers they should be responsible for what their users do too.
As to your "fee websites have all the traffic" argument, it doesn't applies to the current situation - fee websites do not have all the traffic, and a very large portion of their traffic consists of users sent from other websites; which is especially obvious in the case of YouTube. You posted that Hitler parody as an embed from Youtube while you could as well posted it at your own host and embed from there, or simply post a link to this video here in this thread, your parody would still get exposure. It would get some additional exposure at Youtube of course, but you should not be entitled by law to this free additional exposure.