Quote:
Originally Posted by robwod
I am not entirely sure if this whole collaboration is represented thoroughly, or perhaps I am just not fully understanding it. I would like for anyone involved to just correct me, and others, on any of the following statements, please: - Content producers are being asked to pay a fee to protect 10 of their videos from being displayed by the same tubes currently displaying them in an unauthorized fashion, and in full length.
- With only 10 videos protected, participating tubes still have the ability to display the rest of a producer's entire library without authorization, unless DMCA'ed, at which point they have to remove that specific link to that specific video.
- You must be a member of the FSC for the privilege of paying $450 to have 10 of your videos protected against the people displaying them. Anything else in your library is still fair game unless DMCA'ed.
- Anyone can start a tube, create fake users (or hire remote users), visit the torrent and forums that are very rampant with piracy to grab content, then upload the content to your own tube, put a DMCA provision in place to protect yourself, and then join in the protection scheme to be paid to protect content owners, and without any upfront costs to implement the protection software.
- The foundation of this system is one of bait and switch, whereby a full length video is detected and switched for a shorter one that is authorized.
- The FSC has effectively given up on doing anything to close DMCA loopholes through legal channels and are instead using a technology to address an issue for which they themselves have little to no experience with, and using this technology as a way to bolster membership.
I'm not trying to be difficult here, but this thread has certainly caused me to have questions. If I am mistaken on any of the above, by all means I'd appreciate the clarification. |
1) No. There are 2 programs. There's a program called "Media Wise" which does not have a monthly fee. This program works with the participating tubes & prevents users from uploading your content by replacing it with advertising content that you select. There's a completely seperate program called "Video Tracker" which is a tool that is used to track your digital finger prints on the participating tubes AND 16+ other tubes (and more as they add them). It's a tool for sending DMCA notices, tracking, data collection and legal evidence collection. This tool costs $450 per month. There is bulk pricing for tracking more than 10 titles per month. You can participate in just "Media Wise", in just "Video Tracker", or both. I've pointed out that the "Media Wise" program is the no brainer, as participating studios now do not have to even worry about finding and DMCA'ing their content on 8 tube sites, instead by simply getting a digital finger print (which is very simple and help is provided) they can replace attempted uploads with advertisements for their sites on the fly.
2) No. See 1. You were overlooking the "Media Wise" program and instead referencing the "Video Tracker".
3) Yes, the program is limited to FSC members. See DDuke's response as to why as she explains it best. The FSC membership rates are based on a corporation's size, so you can contact the FSC for the exact rates.
4) Correct. In that case they make a distinction between past liability and current liability.
5) All of that is decided by the content owner. I have a feeling content owners will get very creative in figuring out ways to best appeal to a tube surfer.
6) There's no point in the FSC making attempts to clarify or change the laws behind DMCA because it's a waste of money for many reasons. First, is the fact that there has already been plenty of case law established when it comes to DMCA and copyright law. Second, is the fact that because larger industries are impacted by this like music and Hollywood, they are fronting the money to make headway in creating new case law (although some times that backfires too). And lastly, is the fact that it's more likely Congress would make a decision that would impact copyright law and DMCA more severely then any case law would.
I will definitely admit that I'm not an attorney, but I've been through a handful of litigations and have been advised by both in-house counsel and top of the line, experienced copyright law attorneys and I can say with confidence that digital finger printing and filtering is a solid and thorough remedy awarded by the courts.
In fact, while this technology was in its infancy (2001), it was a court ordered remedy in the Napster case:
http://news.cnet.com/Napster-to-add-..._3-267997.html
Since then, it's use has only grown and improved in the mainstream