6 ms·

This really goes to show just how easy it would be to be accused and shutdown as a copyright violator. In this case it was probably an issue of the web designer

This really goes to show just how easy it would be to be accused and shutdown as a copyright violator. In this case it was probably an issue of the web designer recklessly searching for a Texas-y background and Congressman Smith unknowingly using the copyrighted image. Sure, it's irresponsible, but it's an understandable mistake to make. Enter sites with untold volumes of user-submitted content. To begin, it's unlikely that the site owner will be able to police the content due to the sheer scale of it. But what's worse is that if content (like this copyrighted image) is found on the site, there is no immediately clear way to know if its use and publication is licensed or not. (I know this is basically a rehash of our old arguments.)

bad_user 15y ago
Considering that the owner is a US Congressman with extensive knowledge of copyright law (or so I assume) - he should have been paying attention to what happens on his freaking website, which is nothing more than his business card to the whole world. Failing to do so, talking about scale doesn't make much sense, since if a US Congressman, that happens to be the author of SOPA, can't handle it - what chances are there for any website to be on the lookout for violations?
- alexqgb 15y ago
  Actually, this stuff is absolutely impossible to police completely. Major content producers (networks, studios, etc.) know this in their bones, and carry what's known as E&O - Errors & Omissions insurance - for this exact reason. Given the complexity of copyright law, the vagaries of content "creation", and the pressure of constant deadlines, these really are errors and omissions. And given the nature of a business that relies heavily on freelance creatives, the risk of an entirely honest missed-licence or a misattributed credit is so pervasive that distributers (who are the first people to get sued) won't accept material from producers who don't have E&O, and who can't indemnify their distribution partners. At the same time, underwriters won't issue E&O policies to producers who make too many "mistakes". All this puts pressure on producers to make serious efforts to respect the law as mush as humanly possible, while acknowledging that perfect compliance isn't realistic. So pro-SOPA people aren't going to look a this and think "Gosh, maybe we're wrong". They're going to think "This happens all the time, and it's why we carry insurance." Combining copyright law with the mechanisms to ensure that copyright industries follow their own rules has one effect: it drives up the risk and complexity - and thus, the cost - of producing commercial content. For established producers this is actually seen as a good thing, as it provides them with a barrier to entry, not to mention another line-item they can pass on (with mark-up!) to whoever is hiring them. Indeed, that's the whole point. In their view, if you don't have the money and organization to sustain the lawyers and insurance policies "needed" to produce content then you should just focus on buying popcorn. When it comes to actually making media you should "leave it to the professionals". By the way, that popcorn costs twenty bucks. After all, we've got lawyers to pay.
  - sbarre 15y ago
    Hmm maybe if you dig deeper past Lamar Smith, you'll find insurance companies? :-)
    - Natsu 15y ago
      http://maplight.org/us-congress/legislator/470-lamar-smith http://maplight.org/us-congress/legislator/470-lamar-smith Top 10 Interests Funding Industry #10: Insurance - $50,300
  - nitrogen 15y ago
    So pro-SOPA people aren't going to look a this and think "Gosh, maybe we're wrong". They're going to think "This happens all the time, and it's why we carry insurance." That sounds exactly like the way of the dinosaurs: instead of solving a problem like a good engineer would by redesigning the system, they "solve" it by throwing more money at it. It's like deliberately forming a cancerous tumor around a pimple to conceal the pimple.
  - danssig 15y ago
    >Actually, this stuff is absolutely impossible to police completely. Then it can't be a law.
spodek 15y ago
Think of the power a law that everyone breaks gives the government! They must love it. Mostly the executive branch, but others too.
- Natsu 15y ago
  Everyone who has sung "Happy Birthday" is also a pirate. Yes, really. http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.asp http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.asp http://www.unhappybirthday.com/ http://www.unhappybirthday.com/ Sure, there's some evidence that they may have done some iffy things with the registration, but you'd have to go through an expensive trial to prove that, so good luck.
  - vacri 15y ago
    Why on earth is ryanklee's comment dead? He's right - it's not violating copyright to sing a song for non-commercial purposes. Hell, you can even cover a song in a paid live performance and not have to pay royalties. You just can't record it and sell the recording without ponying up. edit: looks like the live commercial performance thing is not true in the US, according to snopes. I guess those guys don't have cover bands...
    - Natsu 15y ago
      That's because the venue pays them on your behalf! http://www.musicianwages.com/the-working-musician/recording-releasing-performing-cover-songs/ http://www.musicianwages.com/the-working-musician/recording-... "As a performer, you do not have to pay performance royalties. These are paid by the venue which hired you to perform. However, if you record your show and sell it as a live album, you will need to pay for the compulsory licenses, discussed later in this article." Now, you could try to argue that it's innocent infringement (or maybe even fair use), but you have to do that in court. From unhappybirthday.com: "Did you know that if you sing any copyrighted song: ...at a place open to the public ...or among a substantial number of people who are not family or friends You are involved in a public performance of that work?" For example, singing "Happy Birthday" at a restaurant.... EDIT: I had to turn on showdead to read that comment you mentioned. He mischaracterizes what Snopes said. I'll let Snopes speak for themselves: "performing a copyrighted work in a public setting such as a restaurant or a sports arena technically requires a license from ASCAP or the Harry Fox Agency (although such infringements are rarely prosecuted)." As you can see, the problem there is public performance not just commercial use.

bad_user 15y ago

Considering that the owner is a US Congressman with extensive knowledge of copyright law (or so I assume) - he should have been paying attention to what happens on his freaking website, which is nothing more than his business card to the whole world. Failing to do so, talking about scale doesn't make much sense, since if a US Congressman, that happens to be the author of SOPA, can't handle it - what chances are there for any website to be on the lookout for violations?

alexqgb 15y ago
Actually, this stuff is absolutely impossible to police completely. Major content producers (networks, studios, etc.) know this in their bones, and carry what's known as E&O - Errors & Omissions insurance - for this exact reason. Given the complexity of copyright law, the vagaries of content "creation", and the pressure of constant deadlines, these really are errors and omissions. And given the nature of a business that relies heavily on freelance creatives, the risk of an entirely honest missed-licence or a misattributed credit is so pervasive that distributers (who are the first people to get sued) won't accept material from producers who don't have E&O, and who can't indemnify their distribution partners. At the same time, underwriters won't issue E&O policies to producers who make too many "mistakes". All this puts pressure on producers to make serious efforts to respect the law as mush as humanly possible, while acknowledging that perfect compliance isn't realistic. So pro-SOPA people aren't going to look a this and think "Gosh, maybe we're wrong". They're going to think "This happens all the time, and it's why we carry insurance." Combining copyright law with the mechanisms to ensure that copyright industries follow their own rules has one effect: it drives up the risk and complexity - and thus, the cost - of producing commercial content. For established producers this is actually seen as a good thing, as it provides them with a barrier to entry, not to mention another line-item they can pass on (with mark-up!) to whoever is hiring them. Indeed, that's the whole point. In their view, if you don't have the money and organization to sustain the lawyers and insurance policies "needed" to produce content then you should just focus on buying popcorn. When it comes to actually making media you should "leave it to the professionals". By the way, that popcorn costs twenty bucks. After all, we've got lawyers to pay.
- sbarre 15y ago
  Hmm maybe if you dig deeper past Lamar Smith, you'll find insurance companies? :-)
  - Natsu 15y ago
    http://maplight.org/us-congress/legislator/470-lamar-smith http://maplight.org/us-congress/legislator/470-lamar-smith Top 10 Interests Funding Industry #10: Insurance - $50,300
- nitrogen 15y ago
  So pro-SOPA people aren't going to look a this and think "Gosh, maybe we're wrong". They're going to think "This happens all the time, and it's why we carry insurance." That sounds exactly like the way of the dinosaurs: instead of solving a problem like a good engineer would by redesigning the system, they "solve" it by throwing more money at it. It's like deliberately forming a cancerous tumor around a pimple to conceal the pimple.
- danssig 15y ago
  >Actually, this stuff is absolutely impossible to police completely. Then it can't be a law.

spodek 15y ago

Think of the power a law that everyone breaks gives the government! They must love it. Mostly the executive branch, but others too.

Natsu 15y ago
Everyone who has sung "Happy Birthday" is also a pirate. Yes, really. http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.asp http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.asp http://www.unhappybirthday.com/ http://www.unhappybirthday.com/ Sure, there's some evidence that they may have done some iffy things with the registration, but you'd have to go through an expensive trial to prove that, so good luck.
- vacri 15y ago
  Why on earth is ryanklee's comment dead? He's right - it's not violating copyright to sing a song for non-commercial purposes. Hell, you can even cover a song in a paid live performance and not have to pay royalties. You just can't record it and sell the recording without ponying up. edit: looks like the live commercial performance thing is not true in the US, according to snopes. I guess those guys don't have cover bands...
  - Natsu 15y ago
    That's because the venue pays them on your behalf! http://www.musicianwages.com/the-working-musician/recording-releasing-performing-cover-songs/ http://www.musicianwages.com/the-working-musician/recording-... "As a performer, you do not have to pay performance royalties. These are paid by the venue which hired you to perform. However, if you record your show and sell it as a live album, you will need to pay for the compulsory licenses, discussed later in this article." Now, you could try to argue that it's innocent infringement (or maybe even fair use), but you have to do that in court. From unhappybirthday.com: "Did you know that if you sing any copyrighted song: ...at a place open to the public ...or among a substantial number of people who are not family or friends You are involved in a public performance of that work?" For example, singing "Happy Birthday" at a restaurant.... EDIT: I had to turn on showdead to read that comment you mentioned. He mischaracterizes what Snopes said. I'll let Snopes speak for themselves: "performing a copyrighted work in a public setting such as a restaurant or a sports arena technically requires a license from ASCAP or the Harry Fox Agency (although such infringements are rarely prosecuted)." As you can see, the problem there is public performance not just commercial use.