The Artful Dodger wrote:It's difficult to indict a foreign-based site swiftly, especially in countries that don't hold similar protections to copyright as the US does. Megaupload was based in China, IIRC.
Also, it's a farce if big-money, fear mongering lobbyists such as the MPAA eventually have their way in the interest of protecting their bottom lines at the expense of the greater good. The MPAA don't just want infringing sites indicted but also those businesses indirectly involved with them if they don't comply in what is in their view, a timely manner.
I'm aware that Megaupload wasn't U.S. based, but there have been no problems shutting down or shutting out places like Neteller and poker sites, which are fully legal sites, so why it took so long to take down a site with so much illegal content is disturbing.
Sure the MPAA wants to take it too far, so I would oppose putting them in charge.
No doubt copyright infringement is illegal, but like I said before, the entertainment industry exaggerates how much they lose in profit margins to piracy when they're probably overlooking that the causes of said losses are attributed to causes within their control. The entertainment industry then reacts with a sweeping offensive to implicate those sites who have little to do with the infringing sites.
Doesn't matter if it is one cent, illegal is illegal.
Except that Youtube, Tumblr, and Flickr is full of user-generated content that 1) either the uploader owns the full copyright to or 2) has fair use of copyrighted content in such a way that the content is transformative and original (i.e. 300 This is Sparta music video mashup). An overzealous anti-piracy bill would likely implicate owners of UGC who have fair use to use copyrighted content, on a shoot first, think later basis.
It's also worth noting that Youtube is a fine example of the entertainment industry seeing the value in video sharing. The likes of CBS wanted to sue Youtube for copyright infringement, but currently have their short-form content hosted on Youtube and make decent ad revenues off the site.
Full? I disagree there. Youtube has made strides to improve the ratio of legal vs. illegal and are succeeding in that regard, so I'll give them that, but they've still got a long way to go before the majority of what's on there is copyright law complaint.
Tavish wrote:To say that those three run because of copyright infringement is making an extremely big leap in logic. Strictly dealing with YouTube, how many of the non-original videos are actual copyright infringement? Non-original does not automatically make it illegal. Not owning the copyright does not automatically make it illegal. For videos that are violating copyrights the content owners have options to remedy the violation immediately whether it be to remove the video completely or to allow it to remain and make money off ads ran every time it is viewed.
Any site that relies on user generated content has the potential for abuse (or any system that relies on a good faith type approach in general whether it be uploading content or making an insurance claim or seeing a psychiatrist or on and on). Simply because a system can be, has been, and will be abused doesn't mean the system needs to be shut down.
Different viewpoint I guess, since I would say it's an equally big leap in logic to say Youtube is where it is without copyright infringement.
Yes, Youtube is working to remove illegal stuff faster, but their system is still broken. They don't have enough employees to verify everything that comes in, which is their fault. It isn't hard to hire some additional people to watch videos all day.
Standards need to be in place to avoid sites being shut down. Increase the punishments and swiftness of enforcing copyright law, and websites will have no choice but to monitor their sites accordingly in order to not get shut down.
So in other words you think that there needs to be due process granted to the sites being accused? I'm tickled.
Of course. If I didn't agree with some sort of "due process" (since you love that phrase), then I'd support SOPA in its current form, and I've said many times that I don't support it in its current form. However, a similar bill with the proper structure would have my full support.
I want to play a game. The rules are simple. All you have to do is sit here and talk to me. Listen to me. We haven't been properly introduced. My name is John.
Live or die. Make your choice.