Quote:
Originally Posted by Nautilus
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.
|
sure it does, the first says that for you to get your exclusive right you must honor fair use
the second says fair use exist EVEN though the previous clause give you "exclusive" rights.
you have no exclusive rights unless you honor fair use, and even if you claim those exclusive rights they don't stop fair use. That by definition sets fair use above your exclusive rights. Only a complete moron would not see that.
Quote:
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.
|
what about a free host like angel fire would they be considered a publisher because they put ads around the content, or a host becaue they allow user to do the uploading.
IF the ads are what make them a publisher then your establishing publisher status to an automatic action of a machine. Again every host could be extended to that extreme so you are in the same boat.
if you are not then youtube is still covered.
if the arguement is between free and paid then you have a serious problem because you are talking about censorship.
suppose the government were to implement a 10,000% tax on porn sales on the internet
(way less than the infinite price increase you want to apply free-> paid)
would you say that was ok. since raising the price is not a violation of your free speech rights or would you cry bloody murder.
Considering that your trade organization fought 25% industry specific tax as censorship i would bet you would cry bloody murder.
Quote:
3. No it does not how the w 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.
|
what are you smoking, youtube is a nexus point. people go to youtube find stuff to embed. if embedding happened just naturally, aol videos would be bigger because they have acces to a big licienced content block. People would magically find those videos and embedd them all.
if i were to host the video myself how would a make sure people would find my video to embedd if i was denied access to the nexus. i would have to buy the clicks at 15 cent each.
So i would have to buy my free speach rights for thousands of dollars.
again should the government be allowed to charge porn sites for subsidization that they provide to all internet business. Select the industry out alone to pay a 10,000% tax so they foot infrastructure bills or would that be censorship.
Think about that the next time you say that fair use must PAY to be heard.