3 ms·
How does an automated process like the one that killed this feed determine fair use? And if it can't, then how can fair use work at all on the internet? Is the
by alan_cx 14y ago
How does an automated process like the one that killed this feed determine fair use? And if it can't, then how can fair use work at all on the internet? Is the fair use exemption effectively over?
- delinka 14y agoThe problem is that "fair use" is the purview of the courts. Yes, there's this thing called 'common sense' that you and I have and can see what fair use should be. But there's no legal definition that is satisfactory for determining fair use in advance. So, the copyright holder sues, you pay for your defense, the court says "fair use" and everyone goes on their merry way (except poorer. which in the case of individuals is typically unacceptable, so they cave to settlement and a "fair use" defense is obliterated.) But what's really obnoxious is this: the streaming feed of the Hugo Awards that was killed was better than fair use, it was licensed use. The automated systems have absolutely no way of determining who has licensed content and who has not.
- praptak 14y agoFair use only works as a get-out-of-lawsuit card in copyright infringement cases. It does not work like constitutional/human rights do - nobody is forced by law not to interfere with your exercising of fair use. Autobot killed your fair-use transmission? That's too bad.
- sp332 14y agoThe automated processes are not required by law. Youtube's was put in place as a result of a lawsuit with Viacom (and to prevent future lawsuits as a CYA move). The DMCA only requires that a site take down a file after receiving a sworn statement from a copyright holder. There is no legal obligation for a site hosting user-provided content to actively police the content.