Tavish wrote:Again, you appear to be having an extremely short-sighted understanding of how the internet works. Your ISP owns, operates, and controls every aspect of your internet connection. Should they be forced to manually check every email, every website request, every piece of data that you send and receive from your computer to make sure that you are not engaging in any copyright infringement? How long do you think they would stay in business if that burden was placed on them? The current laws are far from optimal for the copyright holders but it is in the best of interests of everyone involved (the entertainment industry included) to have an internet that is as open for innovation and communication as possible. It isn't blaming somebody else, it is choosing the lesser of two evils.
Good question about the ISP's. That's one for me to consider for awhile. But I will say the "too big to watch" excuse doesn't fly with me. If someone's business grows too big to pay attention to, they either need to hire more people or slow down the expansion.
There is no doubt that YouTube had its formative years driven by an overwhelmingly large amount of copyright infringement. The founders of the company talked about it constantly and even participated in it. It is also one of the reasons they go above and beyond the requirements of the safe habor requirements. The laws that are present already have done a fairly significant job at forcing YouTube to transform the way they handle infringements. Those that don't want to lay down to these laws will find themselves going the way of Napster, Grokster, or Megaupload. And yes YouTube would be out of business the next day if their choices were either A) to manually review every video that is being or has been uploaded for copyright infringement or B) be open to lawsuits for every infringement.
And again its not just YouTube this would affect. It would be every single website that has any type of user generated content (which is just about every site on the internet that generates any sort of money), every ISP, every web hosting company. Would things really be better off if we sacrificed billions in revenue that is generated online in the hopes of curtailing the loss of millions in revenue due to copyright infringements?
Exactly why stricter laws with faster action are necessary. Youtube should have been slowed down and made legal much, much sooner. Instead, they are having to play catch-up to get to where they are supposed to be and are now "too big to watch" according to the excuse makers. That wouldn't have been the case if they had complied with the law (or been forced to comply) from the very beginning.
Sorry, not buying into the "demise of the internet" if website owners are finally required to be responsible for what is on their website and adhere to the law. Should have been that way from the very beginning.
There is a major difference between YouTube and Megaupload. One is doing what they can to work within the laws and protect themselves (which in turn helps protect the content owners) and the other basically said screw you to the laws and did what they could to profit off the content owners. The current laws protect those that attempt to work within them and help annihilate those that do not.
The trickle down effect of the Megaupload takedown is already becoming very apparent:FileSonic removes sharing capabilityUploaded.to blocks US users
But of course some bury their head in the sandMediaFire isn't a pirate site
The authorities are way too nice. I'll leave that part at that.
Already knew about the trickle down and I expect it to continue. They know that they did not properly monitor their websites, so now they have to make a decision on how they want to proceed. They can try to get away from the U.S., or they can continue to act oblivious to what everyone else already knows and wind up with their site being taken down and charges filed.
Good read. Will be curious to see how it plays out. Two things that stand out to me is that it says Canada doesn't have a fair use provision (not that many Americans truly understand the definition of fair use), so that's interesting. The second thing is slanted of course:
There is no indication in the music industry document of due process or even proof of infringement.
To get a court order to shut it down, they will have to provide some sort of proof of wrongdoing. So regardless of the "without proof" crowd that can sing it from the rooftops, it simply isn't true.
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.