* That ISPs have to proactively police copyright on user-contributed material. This means that it will be impossible to run a service like Flickr or YouTube or Blogger, since hiring enough lawyers to ensure that the mountain of material uploaded every second isn’t infringing will exceed any hope of profitability.
* That ISPs have to cut off the Internet access of accused copyright infringers or face liability. This means that your entire family could be denied to the internet – and hence to civic participation, health information, education, communications, and their means of earning a living – if one member is accused of copyright infringement, without access to a trial or counsel.
* That the whole world must adopt US-style “notice-and-takedown” rules that require ISPs to remove any material that is accused – again, without evidence or trial – of infringing copyright. This has proved a disaster in the US and other countries, where it provides an easy means of censoring material, just by accusing it of infringing copyright.
* Mandatory prohibitions on breaking DRM, even if doing so for a lawful purpose (e.g., to make a work available to disabled people; for archival preservation; because you own the copyrighted work that is locked up with DRM)
BoingBoing is exaggerating a little, but the general observation I would make, is that in forming laws today, the concentrated interest of the media industry is pitted against the diffuse interests of the consumers. In reality, there is no such thing as the interests of the consumers vs. producers, but the guiding philosophy of groups which use the power of the state to obtain special privileges is that human interests are inherently conflicting.
That ISPs have to proactively police copyright on user-contributed material. This means that it will be impossible to run a service like Flickr or YouTube or Blogger, since hiring enough lawyers to ensure that the mountain of material uploaded every second isn’t infringing will exceed any hope of profitability.
“actively police” and “ensure that the mountain of material uploaded every second isn’t infringing” are not one and the same thing. The first one is the supposed requirement (a very realistic expectation, quite frankly), the latter is a silly way to go about actively policing content, that would be impossible to accomplish, especially if they hire lawyers to do the job of programmers. :rolleyes:
That ISPs have to cut off the Internet access of accused copyright infringers or face liability. This means that your entire family could be denied to the internet – and hence to civic participation, health information, education, communications, and their means of earning a living – if one member is accused of copyright infringement, without access to a trial or counsel.
Huh. Almost sounds like everyone has the right to Internet access. I really doubt ISP’s have to cut off people’s Internet, if someone accuses that person of something. The fact that they are liable if they refuse, and it turns out that the accusation was in fact correct and backed up by evidence, is not the same thing. In fact it sounds about right, depending on the details.
That the whole world must adopt US-style “notice-and-takedown” rules that require ISPs to remove any material that is accused – again, without evidence or trial – of infringing copyright. This has proved a disaster in the US and other countries, where it provides an easy means of censoring material, just by accusing it of infringing copyright.
I doubt that US laws require ISP’s to remove any material that is accused to be copyrighted.
I doubt that US laws require ISP’s to remove any material that is accused to be copyrighted.
That is how the law works for sites like YouTube. The accusation has to be formal: i.e. there is a form that has to be filled in (and it might be an affidavit with implications for filing a false claim). Basically, the law views sites as being of two types. If the site is actively monitoring itself for content, then it could be held responsible for hosting copyrighted material. If the site does not generally include any active monitoring of content (e.g. a file-hosting site where one can place any content, or an ISP that provides bandwidth, bits and cycles) then they are generally not responsible for any copyright misuse on their hardware. However, the latter still have to follow a protocol where they react to a formal filing by someone purporting to be the true owner of copyrighted material on their site.
Quite possibly, the line between those two types is still blurred in reality. For instance, a site like ours has moderators checking content. It is quite likely that that can be pointed to as sufficiently active monitoring so that the forum-owner is held responsible for any copyrighted material posted here, if it is not removed in a timely fashion.
“actively police” and “ensure that the mountain of material uploaded every second isn’t infringing” are not one and the same thing.
Actively policing could mean anything if not clearly defined. It could mean forcing ISPs to submit to the government’s mandatory filtering plans.
The fact that they are liable if they refuse, and it turns out that the accusation was in fact correct and backed up by evidence, is not the same thing. In fact it sounds about right, depending on the details.
The criticism is that it sounds from what is written that such actions would not require solid evidence.
Quite possibly, the line between those two types is still blurred in reality. For instance, a site like ours has moderators checking content. It is quite likely that that can be pointed to as sufficiently active monitoring so that the forum-owner is held responsible for any copyrighted material posted here, if it is not removed in a timely fashion.
Isn’t that a good thing? If the copyright owner actually took the time to identify the problem, and notify OO.net of it, isn’t it the least the webmaster should do is honestly look into it?
But that doesn’t mean that the webmaster is forced to remove something based on an accusation. For instance, if I were to write a formal letter saying that your previous post is copyright enfringement, the webmaster is perfectly safe, even if he doesn’t do anything. He has to act based on the evidence I provide, not based on my accusation. That’s an essential misinterpretation the article quoted by Sophia is making.
The criticism is that it sounds from what is written that such actions would not require solid evidence.
Well, what’s solid evidence? If David Letterman is speaking, in the video, on a set that looks like the Late Show set, and a lawyer from CBS writes the guy he perviously met, at Google Inc., a brief e-mail that this video should not be on youtube, is that sufficient evidence? Or does CBS need to prove each time that the video did indeed air on their network first, by putting together a case file containing evidence, for every single video?
Can’t a judge look at the overall behaviour of Google Inc., in the case of a lawsuit from CBS, to decide whether they are responding in good faith to CBS’s notices, overall? Does each and every case have to follow a stringent standard, where indisputable evidence is presented? That sounds more like something that would prevent CBS from getting their stuff off of youtube.
Isn’t that a good thing? If the copyright owner actually took the time to identify the problem, and notify OO.net of it, isn’t it the least the webmaster should do is honestly look into it?
But that doesn’t mean that the webmaster is forced to remove something based on an accusation. For instance, if I were to write a formal letter saying that your previous post is copyright enfringement, the webmaster is perfectly safe, even if he doesn’t do anything. He has to act based on the evidence I provide, not based on my accusation. That’s an essential misinterpretation the article quoted by Sophia is making.
I don’t know the law that well, but I believe the webmaster has to remove the offending content if the accusation come in a proper formal form. I assume that there is a way for the poster to counter with some other form, but on the typical such site the poster would let it go if it is really copyrighted. So, a “take down notice” does actually result in a take down rather than an investigation. It happens on You Tube every day. People will post stuff from all sorts of TV channels, and the TV channel will send YouTube a take down notice.
As for it being a good thing, I don’t say it is not. In fact it does not go far enough to protect the copyright holder. It becomes a cat and mouse game. I assume that most of the bigger network have one or more people employed in policing the popular sites and sending them take-down notices. The same for the large music publishers and studios. There is also a small industry of software producers who make software than scanns videos that have been uploaded, to try and identify if it could contain content belonging to a particular library of content.
One problem here is the anonymity of the criminal. I’m not sure if the law has also got provisions by which a keen producer can follow this through, and identify the poster. Since some music-publishers have acted against individual music-sharers in the past, I assume that they can follow that route as well.