4 ms·

Matt didn't get the viacom / youtube thing right. The DMCA provides a certain copyright-related safe harbor to online service providers, not just ISPs as he sta

Matt didn't get the viacom / youtube thing right. The DMCA provides a certain copyright-related safe harbor to online service providers, not just ISPs as he states. It is far from clear that youtube violated copyrights (that is the point of the litigation after all). see: http://www.lessig.org/blog/2007/03/viacom_v_youtube.html http://www.lessig.org/blog/2007/03/viacom_v_youtube.html

mattmaroon 18y ago
I've read in a number of places (and this may be incorrect) that YouTube loses safe harbor by converting the videos from one format to another. Mark Cuban said that for one, and he has paid entertainment lawyers on staff.
- abstractbill 18y ago
  Regardless of what the law says, this doesn't make sense. An automated process blindly converts video from one format into another, and the company hosting the video suddenly has a duty to examine each and every video to look for potential infringements? I don't see how that follows at all. Of course much of this law is untested, so any lawyer who makes claims about this is most likely just telling you what he thinks he can make a court believe.
  - deleted 18y ago
    [deleted]
  - antiismist 18y ago
    The safe harbor provision is here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000512----000-.html http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_0... It could make sense, depending on the analogy that someone picks. For example, I have a coffee shop with a community message board. Someone posts copyrighted information there - someone tells me about it and I take it down right away. That sounds pretty fair. But what if I make a whole operation out of it - like if there are pictures, then I take those, clean them up, copy them, frame them, and put them on the wall of my shop. Now it seems like I have a lot more responsibility for what is going on. Is it fair for me to just blindly frame every single picture I find, even if some of the pictures are obviously copyrighted? Anyway that is my logical argument (as opposed to a legal one...)

mattmaroon 18y ago

I've read in a number of places (and this may be incorrect) that YouTube loses safe harbor by converting the videos from one format to another. Mark Cuban said that for one, and he has paid entertainment lawyers on staff.

abstractbill 18y ago
Regardless of what the law says, this doesn't make sense. An automated process blindly converts video from one format into another, and the company hosting the video suddenly has a duty to examine each and every video to look for potential infringements? I don't see how that follows at all. Of course much of this law is untested, so any lawyer who makes claims about this is most likely just telling you what he thinks he can make a court believe.
- deleted 18y ago
  [deleted]
- antiismist 18y ago
  The safe harbor provision is here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000512----000-.html http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_0... It could make sense, depending on the analogy that someone picks. For example, I have a coffee shop with a community message board. Someone posts copyrighted information there - someone tells me about it and I take it down right away. That sounds pretty fair. But what if I make a whole operation out of it - like if there are pictures, then I take those, clean them up, copy them, frame them, and put them on the wall of my shop. Now it seems like I have a lot more responsibility for what is going on. Is it fair for me to just blindly frame every single picture I find, even if some of the pictures are obviously copyrighted? Anyway that is my logical argument (as opposed to a legal one...)