On TV.com: SCRUBS Goes Back to Medical School
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 8 of 43:
Next »
« Previous
True, but not the same
It is true that Napster and Kazza were hammered, but for a different reason. Their services were designed, from the ground up, to allow the sharing of songs/videos, in spite of the copyright. There was no effort to remove offending materials, as they never actually stored any of the items (their argument), they only allowed the transfer between systems. They felt that they should be immune. Their business model was designed to circumvent the rights of the legit owner of the property. They got busted for aiding and abetting the violators, not for the violations. YouTube's business model is not the same and therefore you cannot apply the same ruling.

YouTube will remove any materials that they are notified that is stored on their equipment. Viacom's contention is that YouTube should police the material, not the copyright holder. That would be tantamount to asking Kinko's(tm) to police every item that is copied to make sure that the person is not infringing on copyright holder's rights. The law (in the past) has always sided with the copyright holder, when the copyright holder found an instance of violation of their rights. The person, or persons, that infringed on the rights of the work's originator are held responsible, not the publisher of the infringed work.

Now, in an electronic age, should the person posting the infringing material be held liable for the infringement or the publisher (e.g. YouTube)? Viacom's contention is that YouTube should be liable, not the infringer, not because of anything other than the number of potential infringers (they don?t want to spend the time and effort to protect their rights, they want someone else to do it on their own dime).

Answer? Track who uploads an item and who downloads an item. Then, if there appears to be an issue, then the owner of the material can get a list to send cease and desist orders to.

IMHO!
Posted by: jc williams   Posted on: 03/14/07 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

"Directly"  Jack-Booted EULA | 03/13/07
Directly means  No_Ax_to_Grind | 03/13/07
Does that include  Jack-Booted EULA | 03/13/07
no...  Stuka | 03/13/07
The courts disagree with you.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 03/13/07
Different case  voska | 03/14/07
But there's a difference.  Henaway | 03/14/07
True, but not the same  jc williams | 03/14/07
Sorry - directly MEANS directly  macbill | 03/14/07
Should be fun to watch  tic swayback | 03/13/07
agreed, absolutely!!  mdsmedia | 03/13/07
Only if I get to write the new one.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 03/13/07
Oh great  tic swayback | 03/14/07
Yeah, right....  Henrik Moller | 03/13/07
YouTube's fate rests on decade-old copyright law  Loverock Davidson | 03/13/07
yeah, good one Lovey  mdsmedia | 03/13/07
The Literal interpretation of the DMCA...  mdsmedia | 03/13/07
Once YouTube goes, the house of cards will hopefully follow  Scrat | 03/14/07
Cards like...  tic swayback | 03/14/07
I don't want YOUR internet!  macbill | 03/14/07
There will be no winners.  Raymond Danner | 03/14/07
Umm...it's a matter of time before - - -  Zolar | 03/14/07
Forgot - about the old music  Zolar | 03/14/07
Hit the nail on the head ...  Henaway | 03/14/07
Who should do the police work?  golfnutzgg@... | 03/14/07
By The Same Token  Mr_Wizard | 03/14/07
Tracking would satisfy  plutes | 03/14/07
Sooner or later.and it might be now...  epcraig | 03/14/07
There's no doubt about that  macbill | 03/14/07
I respectfully disagree.  Raymond Danner | 03/14/07
DMCA was never a good law  jdubow@... | 03/14/07
Unbalanced laws, infinite copyright...  Raymond Danner | 03/14/07
If only the DMCA was "nearly antique"...  Resuna | 03/14/07
How is this different?  steeleweed | 03/14/07
It's all short-sighted...  chas_2 | 03/14/07
Our Cultural Heritage is at Stake here  YellowbirdTwo | 03/14/07
I concur  sgo7 | 03/14/07
Money Opposes Merit  bcroner | 03/14/07
Here's a chance for Google to prove its non-evilness  plutes | 03/14/07
It really boggles the mind....  staygroovy | 03/15/07
YouTube charging?  billschwenke@... | 03/15/07
Viacom vs YouTube  PCH #1 | 03/15/07
The laws need fixing, and not just for companies  Boot_Agnostic | 03/24/07

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement
advertisement

SmartPlanet

Click Here