Comments on: Objecting to the Increasing Burden on Copyright Owners and Creators http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/2010/06/objecting-to-the-increasing-burden-on-copyright-owners-and-creators/ Copyright Information Tue, 28 Jun 2011 19:02:36 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: The Copyright Alliance Blog » Blog Archive » Washington Post lets us Speak Out for Artists http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/2010/06/objecting-to-the-increasing-burden-on-copyright-owners-and-creators/#comment-58284 The Copyright Alliance Blog » Blog Archive » Washington Post lets us Speak Out for Artists Wed, 30 Jun 2010 10:38:03 +0000 http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/?p=656#comment-58284 [...] letter, in short, echoes the remarks I made in this space last week, that the court failed to consider the impact on individual artists and creators by green-lighting [...] [...] letter, in short, echoes the remarks I made in this space last week, that the court failed to consider the impact on individual artists and creators by green-lighting [...]

]]> By: Jane Mulvaney http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/2010/06/objecting-to-the-increasing-burden-on-copyright-owners-and-creators/#comment-58097 Jane Mulvaney Fri, 25 Jun 2010 20:55:45 +0000 http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/?p=656#comment-58097 This post cites PicScout's image infringement statistics. We agree, increasing burdens on the part of content creators is not the answer. The answer lies in harnessing the power of technology to be applied across platforms and devices to allow users to do the right thing, for content creators to promote their content wherever it appears, and for online host sites to use proper content identification. It's also important to have a process in place whereby if images are not used correctly, there is a means for pursuing protection and compensation. PicScout built its ImageIRC (index, registry and connection) to work with industry organizations like Plus, stock photo agencies and photographers to ensure that Every Image Gets Its Credit. PicScout provides promotion (ImageExchange), content ID (ImageQualification) and protection (ImageTracker) products which leverage PicScout's proprietary fingerprinting technology. You can learn more about ImageIRC by visiting http://www.picscout.com/products-services/products-and-services.html . This post cites PicScout’s image infringement statistics. We agree, increasing burdens on the part of content creators is not the answer. The answer lies in harnessing the power of technology to be applied across platforms and devices to allow users to do the right thing, for content creators to promote their content wherever it appears, and for online host sites to use proper content identification. It’s also important to have a process in place whereby if images are not used correctly, there is a means for pursuing protection and compensation.

PicScout built its ImageIRC (index, registry and connection) to work with industry organizations like Plus, stock photo agencies and photographers to ensure that Every Image Gets Its Credit. PicScout provides promotion (ImageExchange), content ID (ImageQualification) and protection (ImageTracker) products which leverage PicScout’s proprietary fingerprinting technology.

You can learn more about ImageIRC by visiting http://www.picscout.com/products-services/products-and-services.html .

]]> By: Patrick Ross http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/2010/06/objecting-to-the-increasing-burden-on-copyright-owners-and-creators/#comment-58087 Patrick Ross Fri, 25 Jun 2010 16:15:33 +0000 http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/?p=656#comment-58087 Actually, I see a connection to the YouTube debate -- occasionally the content on a cyberlocker site or streaming site is actually user-generated and owned by the individual sharing. That is of course the thinking behind the DMCA safe harbor. Like the YouTube founders said in their emails, though, the user-generated content is not the content driving viewers. Beyond YouTube, which derives income from advertising, I have a major issue with sites like ZML.com, which also sport ads but limit bandwidth and content unless you sign up for a paid subscription, complete with fake Visa, MasterCard and McAfeee logos to dupe the consumer into thinking the service is legal and safe. Actively collecting money for infringed content should certainly warrant blocking of such sites in the US, especially when they're not seeking DMCA protection. Actually, I see a connection to the YouTube debate — occasionally the content on a cyberlocker site or streaming site is actually user-generated and owned by the individual sharing. That is of course the thinking behind the DMCA safe harbor. Like the YouTube founders said in their emails, though, the user-generated content is not the content driving viewers.

Beyond YouTube, which derives income from advertising, I have a major issue with sites like ZML.com, which also sport ads but limit bandwidth and content unless you sign up for a paid subscription, complete with fake Visa, MasterCard and McAfeee logos to dupe the consumer into thinking the service is legal and safe. Actively collecting money for infringed content should certainly warrant blocking of such sites in the US, especially when they’re not seeking DMCA protection.

]]> By: William F. Aicher http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/2010/06/objecting-to-the-increasing-burden-on-copyright-owners-and-creators/#comment-58081 William F. Aicher Fri, 25 Jun 2010 15:27:53 +0000 http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/?p=656#comment-58081 I'd love to see a discussion on the idea of basically requiring that any known offender web site must be blocked by an ISP. I'm really not one for government regulation, but we also can't allow people to just host in another country so they can do whatever they feel like and ignore the law. It would be an interesting change. Basically if you don't comply with the DMCA, your site will be blocked for access in the United States. Obviously this really has nothing to do with YouTube - it's just that the comments above got me thinking about this. I’d love to see a discussion on the idea of basically requiring that any known offender web site must be blocked by an ISP. I’m really not one for government regulation, but we also can’t allow people to just host in another country so they can do whatever they feel like and ignore the law.

It would be an interesting change. Basically if you don’t comply with the DMCA, your site will be blocked for access in the United States.

Obviously this really has nothing to do with YouTube – it’s just that the comments above got me thinking about this.

]]> By: Patrick Ross http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/2010/06/objecting-to-the-increasing-burden-on-copyright-owners-and-creators/#comment-58080 Patrick Ross Fri, 25 Jun 2010 15:17:25 +0000 http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/?p=656#comment-58080 I mention the streaming sites in the post. Those sites tend to either rely on content being hosted in cyberlockers or work through P2P file-sharing. These sites are also subject to DMCA notice-and-takedown, although many are outside of the US and aren't exactly responsive. As for graduated response, in countries where that is being put into law the focus is on the individual infringer. Just about any government already has the authority to shut down a criminal online venture within its own borders, and when I testified on this issue at a December event at the FTC, I even got a speaker from EFF to agree that no country should tolerate a commercial pirate site operating in its borders. I mention the streaming sites in the post. Those sites tend to either rely on content being hosted in cyberlockers or work through P2P file-sharing. These sites are also subject to DMCA notice-and-takedown, although many are outside of the US and aren’t exactly responsive.

As for graduated response, in countries where that is being put into law the focus is on the individual infringer. Just about any government already has the authority to shut down a criminal online venture within its own borders, and when I testified on this issue at a December event at the FTC, I even got a speaker from EFF to agree that no country should tolerate a commercial pirate site operating in its borders.

]]> By: Roger Colbert http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/2010/06/objecting-to-the-increasing-burden-on-copyright-owners-and-creators/#comment-58078 Roger Colbert Fri, 25 Jun 2010 15:06:01 +0000 http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/?p=656#comment-58078 When I read this article I couldn't help but think the YouTube story to be insignificant. "Cyberlockers now represent the preferred method by which consumers are enjoying pirated content," Paramount Pictures http://yhoo.it/9EwPsO It leads me to think that a walled garden may need to be erected whereby entire countries may have to be blocked from countries that have better copyright enforcement. The tremendous amount of money to be made by these criminals could be enough to influence law in the offending countries themselves. Remember that 3 strike laws don't even cover the type actions associated with this type of infringement. If I ever saw a darker future for copyright I can't think of it. When I read this article I couldn’t help but think the YouTube story to be insignificant.
“Cyberlockers now represent the preferred method by which consumers are enjoying pirated content,” Paramount Pictures http://yhoo.it/9EwPsO
It leads me to think that a walled garden may need to be erected whereby entire countries may have to be blocked from countries that have better copyright enforcement.
The tremendous amount of money to be made by these criminals could be enough to influence law in the offending countries themselves.
Remember that 3 strike laws don’t even cover the type actions associated with this type of infringement.
If I ever saw a darker future for copyright I can’t think of it.

]]> By: Roger Colbert http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/2010/06/objecting-to-the-increasing-burden-on-copyright-owners-and-creators/#comment-58071 Roger Colbert Fri, 25 Jun 2010 12:54:13 +0000 http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/?p=656#comment-58071 I have to agree with William, while wishing that the ruling was different the outcome is not going to change under current law. Many articles on this subject are comparing this decision to Grokster, Napster and others that encouraged infringement. The key in all of these cases was the encouragement to infringe and the purpose being almost strictly for infringement. Does anyone have any numbers on what might be the amount of infringing material currently on YouTube? I understand that a good part of this is historic but their top viewed videos does not (at least at this moment) appear to have any infringing content, not to say it doesn't exist. Understanding that the protection of copyright is critical any future change in law will have to consider whether or not the idea of a user generated content site can exist at all. I have to agree with William, while wishing that the ruling was different the outcome is not going to change under current law. Many articles on this subject are comparing this decision to Grokster, Napster and others that encouraged infringement. The key in all of these cases was the encouragement to infringe and the purpose being almost strictly for infringement. Does anyone have any numbers on what might be the amount of infringing material currently on YouTube? I understand that a good part of this is historic but their top viewed videos does not (at least at this moment) appear to have any infringing content, not to say it doesn’t exist.
Understanding that the protection of copyright is critical any future change in law will have to consider whether or not the idea of a user generated content site can exist at all.

]]> By: William Aicher http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/2010/06/objecting-to-the-increasing-burden-on-copyright-owners-and-creators/#comment-58069 William Aicher Fri, 25 Jun 2010 12:15:21 +0000 http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/?p=656#comment-58069 The fact is, the judge ruled pretty much according to the law. It's the DMCA itself that needs amending at this point. One idea I've been mulling over (not enough to decide if it really is a good idea or not yet though) is this: In order for an ISP or web site to be eligible to fall under safe harbor laws, they must require personal, identifiable information as to who the uploader is. If it's going to be the case that the sites are not liable, then they need to be required to display information as to who actually is the one infringing - which is the uploader. The anonymity of the net has allowed people to do whatever they want, with no repercussions for their actions. In all truth, it really is the uploaders who are doing the infringing on YouTube, even though YouTube executives knew very well that this was vital to YouTube's success. YouTube's largest fault is one of a complete lack of morals and respect for other peoples' work. The law and ethics are absolutely not the same. The fact is, the judge ruled pretty much according to the law. It’s the DMCA itself that needs amending at this point. One idea I’ve been mulling over (not enough to decide if it really is a good idea or not yet though) is this: In order for an ISP or web site to be eligible to fall under safe harbor laws, they must require personal, identifiable information as to who the uploader is. If it’s going to be the case that the sites are not liable, then they need to be required to display information as to who actually is the one infringing – which is the uploader. The anonymity of the net has allowed people to do whatever they want, with no repercussions for their actions.

In all truth, it really is the uploaders who are doing the infringing on YouTube, even though YouTube executives knew very well that this was vital to YouTube’s success.

YouTube’s largest fault is one of a complete lack of morals and respect for other peoples’ work. The law and ethics are absolutely not the same.

]]> By: Terry Hart http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/2010/06/objecting-to-the-increasing-burden-on-copyright-owners-and-creators/#comment-58042 Terry Hart Thu, 24 Jun 2010 21:32:10 +0000 http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/?p=656#comment-58042 Unfortunately, this is the result when the burden of administering copyright law is placed entirely on Congress. The difficulty and pace of getting legislation passed compared to the pace of technological changes ensures that when Congress does do something, it's already responding to yesterday's problems. And that same difficulty and pace ensures that those efforts, like the DMCA, remain 'hard-wired' into the law for decades. And as you observed, the legislative process is influenced most by the most established and most powerful interests, like Verizon, leaving the interests of artists, creators, and smaller stakeholders off the table. Look at Victoria Espinel's recent report and see what is missing: a lack of any institution that can administer and enforce copyright law better than Congress can. The Copyright Office is ideally situated to take on this role. They are given a pat on the back for a couple of speeches and outreach programs they do in the report, but that only seems to highlight the fact that the agency continues to play little role in shaping and administering copyright policy. Unfortunately, this is the result when the burden of administering copyright law is placed entirely on Congress.

The difficulty and pace of getting legislation passed compared to the pace of technological changes ensures that when Congress does do something, it’s already responding to yesterday’s problems. And that same difficulty and pace ensures that those efforts, like the DMCA, remain ‘hard-wired’ into the law for decades.

And as you observed, the legislative process is influenced most by the most established and most powerful interests, like Verizon, leaving the interests of artists, creators, and smaller stakeholders off the table.

Look at Victoria Espinel’s recent report and see what is missing: a lack of any institution that can administer and enforce copyright law better than Congress can. The Copyright Office is ideally situated to take on this role. They are given a pat on the back for a couple of speeches and outreach programs they do in the report, but that only seems to highlight the fact that the agency continues to play little role in shaping and administering copyright policy.

]]>