4 ms·

> This law makes it illegal to use clips of a movie in critiquing it, or cut snippets of images to form a collage, or point to examples of art, film, and music

> This law makes it illegal to use clips of a movie in critiquing it, or cut snippets of images to form a collage, or point to examples of art, film, and music in an educational setting. Really? It specifically says it shall in no way affect legitimate uses Which specific part are you referring to which prevents this?

_ph_ 8y ago
The law will effectively eliminate any content uploading. Whether it is 100% originally created by the uploader or containing copyrightes material, covered by fair use or not. As the platform owner carries the whole risk for damages, only a few large industrial platforms like youtube might survive. But only with extremely stringend upload filters which mean the end of any content containg possibly copyrighted material.
- isostatic 8y ago
  Will I be able to, with this law 1) Go to linode and buy a VPS 2) Upload my own reviews of a movie (including scenes from the movie as appropiate) which are allowed under existing copyright law 3) Make those reviews available to everyone? My understanding is yes Will I be able to, with this law 1) Go to linode and buy a VPS 2) Allow others to upload their own reviews of a movie (including scenes from the movie as appropiate) 3) Allow me to review them to ensure that they are allowed under existing copyright law 4) Make those reviews available to everyone? My understanding is yes So I don't understand how "This law makes it illegal to use clips of a movie in critiquing it". It simply ensures that those breaking copyright law have the weight of the law upon them.
  - _ph_ 8y ago
    Your ability to self-host is not affected at all. But self-hosting is getting more and more rare as few people have the resources (both financial and time-wise) to set up their own site and administrate it. Also, it is much more difficult to be discovered when not on a site with large user count. So the first szenario is absolutely possible. The second szenario puts you at a huge risk. You would have to review every single submission to your site for copyrighted material. This means you can accept like 1 submission per day? And still you would have to make sure (and bear the whole financial risk if wrong), that the submission is completely legal. This might work in a very few specific szenarios, but you could not run a site like a photography forum. If users have the ability to upload content, starting with their writing but even more so when uploading photographs. There is simply no way for the site administrator to find out whether the uploader holds the copyrights to the uploaded photograph. If the uploader does not, you are liable for the copyright violation. In the end, even hacker news probably becomes unavailable in Europe. If a user would paste a newspaper article into a comment, hacker news could be sued for this copyright violation.
    - isostatic 8y ago
      > Your ability to self-host is not affected at all. Phew, I thought I'd misread it So the law doesn't "make it illegal to use clips of a movie in critiquing it". > In the end, even hacker news probably becomes unavailable in Europe. If a user would paste a newspaper article into a comment, hacker news could be sued for this copyright violation. It's already illegal for HN to host copyright material.
      - _ph_ 8y ago
        > > Your ability to self-host is not affected at all. > Phew, I thought I'd misread it > So the law doesn't "make it illegal to use clips of a movie in critiquing it". Not more or less than before. But you won't be able to find a platform for doing so, unless you self-host. > > In the end, even hacker news probably becomes unavailable in Europe. If a user would paste a newspaper article into a comment, hacker news could be sued for this copyright violation. > It's already illegal for HN to host copyright material. Yes, but so far, they only had to remove it, when they got a complaint. Now they bear the full liability for the copyright violation. So it is the same game as with file sharing: value of the material times the number of downloads, so we are easily talking about claims in the range of millions.
        isostatic 8y ago
        > Not more or less than before. But you won't be able to find a platform for doing so, unless you self-host. Sounds like a gap in the market then. > Yes, but so far, they only had to remove it, when they got a complaint. Kim Dot Com hosted infringing material and had far more serious impact than "had to remove it"

_ph_ 8y ago

The law will effectively eliminate any content uploading. Whether it is 100% originally created by the uploader or containing copyrightes material, covered by fair use or not. As the platform owner carries the whole risk for damages, only a few large industrial platforms like youtube might survive. But only with extremely stringend upload filters which mean the end of any content containg possibly copyrighted material.

isostatic 8y ago
Will I be able to, with this law 1) Go to linode and buy a VPS 2) Upload my own reviews of a movie (including scenes from the movie as appropiate) which are allowed under existing copyright law 3) Make those reviews available to everyone? My understanding is yes Will I be able to, with this law 1) Go to linode and buy a VPS 2) Allow others to upload their own reviews of a movie (including scenes from the movie as appropiate) 3) Allow me to review them to ensure that they are allowed under existing copyright law 4) Make those reviews available to everyone? My understanding is yes So I don't understand how "This law makes it illegal to use clips of a movie in critiquing it". It simply ensures that those breaking copyright law have the weight of the law upon them.
- _ph_ 8y ago
  Your ability to self-host is not affected at all. But self-hosting is getting more and more rare as few people have the resources (both financial and time-wise) to set up their own site and administrate it. Also, it is much more difficult to be discovered when not on a site with large user count. So the first szenario is absolutely possible. The second szenario puts you at a huge risk. You would have to review every single submission to your site for copyrighted material. This means you can accept like 1 submission per day? And still you would have to make sure (and bear the whole financial risk if wrong), that the submission is completely legal. This might work in a very few specific szenarios, but you could not run a site like a photography forum. If users have the ability to upload content, starting with their writing but even more so when uploading photographs. There is simply no way for the site administrator to find out whether the uploader holds the copyrights to the uploaded photograph. If the uploader does not, you are liable for the copyright violation. In the end, even hacker news probably becomes unavailable in Europe. If a user would paste a newspaper article into a comment, hacker news could be sued for this copyright violation.
  - isostatic 8y ago
    > Your ability to self-host is not affected at all. Phew, I thought I'd misread it So the law doesn't "make it illegal to use clips of a movie in critiquing it". > In the end, even hacker news probably becomes unavailable in Europe. If a user would paste a newspaper article into a comment, hacker news could be sued for this copyright violation. It's already illegal for HN to host copyright material.
    - _ph_ 8y ago
      > > Your ability to self-host is not affected at all. > Phew, I thought I'd misread it > So the law doesn't "make it illegal to use clips of a movie in critiquing it". Not more or less than before. But you won't be able to find a platform for doing so, unless you self-host. > > In the end, even hacker news probably becomes unavailable in Europe. If a user would paste a newspaper article into a comment, hacker news could be sued for this copyright violation. > It's already illegal for HN to host copyright material. Yes, but so far, they only had to remove it, when they got a complaint. Now they bear the full liability for the copyright violation. So it is the same game as with file sharing: value of the material times the number of downloads, so we are easily talking about claims in the range of millions.
      - isostatic 8y ago
        > Not more or less than before. But you won't be able to find a platform for doing so, unless you self-host. Sounds like a gap in the market then. > Yes, but so far, they only had to remove it, when they got a complaint. Kim Dot Com hosted infringing material and had far more serious impact than "had to remove it"