2 ms·

> Suffice it to say, the "better safe than sorry" approach taken here by Yahoo/Flickr is a very common "Common" does not imply correct. I will grant you that

by ynniv 17y ago

> Suffice it to say, the "better safe than sorry" approach taken here by Yahoo/Flickr is a very common "Common" does not imply correct. I will grant you that its common. > Safe Harbor provision of the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act The Safe Harbor provision of §512(c) requires the provider to take down content given 1) notice from the content owner, or 2) the presence of "red flags". References to red flags in the DMCA suggest gross infraction, which in this case would look like a Flickr account dedicated to reproducing copyrighted content. This does not appear to be the case [http://www.flickr.com/photos/khateeb88/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/khateeb88/]. The "red flag" provision was also added to §512(d) for link indexing sites. There is more descriptive text attached to this "red flag" and it explicitly counters your broad "better safe than sorry aproach": catalogers would not be required to make discriminating judgments about potential copyright infringement. Without a takedown notice from a copyright holder, or an account dedicated to reproduction of unlicensed content, this is no legal reason for taking this content down. It is hopefully the work of a single moderator, and not corporate policy.

_pius 17y ago
I'm not sure why you're still arguing, but that wasn't convincing at all. I'll quickly address what you've said and then I'm done with the thread. Beyond that, I don't know what else to do other than again point you to the law and encourage you to talk to some experts in the field if you don't believe me. This isn't my analysis ... I'm just repeating what I learned when I took a class on the subject. Thankfully, it's also supported by the law. :) "Common" does not imply correct. I will grant you that its common. I'm not sure what you mean by "correct" in this domain. I don't think "correct" is defined here; there are only "legal" strategies and "liability-minimizing" strategies. The legality is a binary question and I think you'd agree that what Yahoo did was legal. Whether Yahoo's strategy is the most effective at limiting the liability is almost a closed question as well. You conceded earlier that it is a common strategy. The reason it is common for online service providers is that it is currently the most sure-fire strategy for limiting liability stemming from speech that users make. ... it explicitly counters your broad "better safe than sorry aproach" [sic] No, actually it confirms what I said and explicitly debunks your claim that taking down the content is equivalent to adjudicating the copyright issues. The point of the provision is that you don't need to make a judgment; as long as you take the content down upon being made aware of potential copyright violations, you're fine. Hence, "better safe than sorry." Without a takedown notice from a copyright holder, or an account dedicated to reproduction of unlicensed content, this is no legal reason for taking this content down. What makes you think there was no such notice?
- ynniv 17y ago
  > This isn't my analysis ... I'm just repeating what I learned in this guy's class: [redacted] I am also not a lawyer and I am interpreting the law as written on my own, so my opinions probably differ from top law professors. I am a a little disappointed at the argument from authority, but I can't say that I wouldn't have done the same given the situation. > I'm not sure what you mean by "correct" in this domain. Thats a very good point, and I think that by correct I mean "most morally correct in the bounds of the law". Certainly, what Yahoo did was legal, but it was also unnecessary. As far as I can tell, the photo posed them no liability, nor were they legally required to remove it. > No, actually it confirms what I said and explicitly debunks your claim You are correct. I was wrong in saying that it countered your argument, and should have said that it provides a wider berth for Yahoo to retain their safe harbor status. Their actions were unnecessary in the eyes of the law (as written). > What makes you think there was no such notice? The LA Times article says that Flickr removed the image "due to copyright-infringement concerns". That doesn't prove that there was no notice, but citing "notice" sounds a lot better than citing "concerns" and I would expect them to do so. > I'm not sure why you're still arguing I'm not sure either. Partly, this thread started with the blanket statement that "'fair use' is not a right", which while correct, is a bit of a troll and got me emotionally involved. More generally, I feel that your implicit argument that Flickr did nothing wrong is pervasive but incorrect. The way in which they handled this case combined with their legal liabilities suggest that their actions were based on the popularity and political views of the photograph posted. As you mentioned, if one cares about their rights, they should host their own content. I couldn't agree more, and this is a clear public display of the disadvantages in relying on corporate services.

by ynniv 17y ago

_pius 17y ago

I'm not sure why you're still arguing, but that wasn't convincing at all. I'll quickly address what you've said and then I'm done with the thread. Beyond that, I don't know what else to do other than again point you to the law and encourage you to talk to some experts in the field if you don't believe me. This isn't my analysis ... I'm just repeating what I learned when I took a class on the subject. Thankfully, it's also supported by the law. :) "Common" does not imply correct. I will grant you that its common. I'm not sure what you mean by "correct" in this domain. I don't think "correct" is defined here; there are only "legal" strategies and "liability-minimizing" strategies. The legality is a binary question and I think you'd agree that what Yahoo did was legal. Whether Yahoo's strategy is the most effective at limiting the liability is almost a closed question as well. You conceded earlier that it is a common strategy. The reason it is common for online service providers is that it is currently the most sure-fire strategy for limiting liability stemming from speech that users make. ... it explicitly counters your broad "better safe than sorry aproach" [sic] No, actually it confirms what I said and explicitly debunks your claim that taking down the content is equivalent to adjudicating the copyright issues. The point of the provision is that you don't need to make a judgment; as long as you take the content down upon being made aware of potential copyright violations, you're fine. Hence, "better safe than sorry." Without a takedown notice from a copyright holder, or an account dedicated to reproduction of unlicensed content, this is no legal reason for taking this content down. What makes you think there was no such notice?

ynniv 17y ago
> This isn't my analysis ... I'm just repeating what I learned in this guy's class: [redacted] I am also not a lawyer and I am interpreting the law as written on my own, so my opinions probably differ from top law professors. I am a a little disappointed at the argument from authority, but I can't say that I wouldn't have done the same given the situation. > I'm not sure what you mean by "correct" in this domain. Thats a very good point, and I think that by correct I mean "most morally correct in the bounds of the law". Certainly, what Yahoo did was legal, but it was also unnecessary. As far as I can tell, the photo posed them no liability, nor were they legally required to remove it. > No, actually it confirms what I said and explicitly debunks your claim You are correct. I was wrong in saying that it countered your argument, and should have said that it provides a wider berth for Yahoo to retain their safe harbor status. Their actions were unnecessary in the eyes of the law (as written). > What makes you think there was no such notice? The LA Times article says that Flickr removed the image "due to copyright-infringement concerns". That doesn't prove that there was no notice, but citing "notice" sounds a lot better than citing "concerns" and I would expect them to do so. > I'm not sure why you're still arguing I'm not sure either. Partly, this thread started with the blanket statement that "'fair use' is not a right", which while correct, is a bit of a troll and got me emotionally involved. More generally, I feel that your implicit argument that Flickr did nothing wrong is pervasive but incorrect. The way in which they handled this case combined with their legal liabilities suggest that their actions were based on the popularity and political views of the photograph posted. As you mentioned, if one cares about their rights, they should host their own content. I couldn't agree more, and this is a clear public display of the disadvantages in relying on corporate services.