"In the United States, anything visible ('in plain view') from a public area can be legally photographed. This includes buildings and facilities, people, signage, notices and images. It is not uncommon for security personnel to use intimidation or other tactics to attempt to stop the photographer from photographing their facilities (trying to prevent, e.g., industrial espionage); however, there is no legal precedent to prevent the photographer so long as the image being photographed is in plain view from a public area.*
Recent events have confirmed that Defendants are able to identify copyrighted material on the YouTube website - and to remove such material if they wish - so long as victims of Defendants' infringing conduct agree to pay Defendants to do so, by authorizing the otherwise infringing exploitation of their works by Defendants. In a Twenty-First Century embodiment of an age-old scheme, Defendants have agreed to provide "protection" against their own infringing conduct through a series of "partnership" agreements with various copyright owners. Put another way, when the license fee sought by a copyright owner is low enough to be deemed satisfactory to Defendants, Defendants find themselves able to shed their blinders and employ technology to safeguard the rights of their new "partners." By contrast, Defendants steadfastly refuse to respect the rights of members of the Class who insist on asserting their rights under the laws Congress has enacted to protect them rather than being forced to sell those rights on the cheap as part of Defendants' "protection" scheme.
The current law is the law -- disagree with it all you want, but if you violate it, then expect to suffer the consequences. Google included.
People who are saying, "Well, gee, it's up to copyright owners to police their works," excuse me?
Delmoi et al. All these arguments about how "copyright infringement" is different from plain old stealing are just lost on me. -- MarshallPoe
Orwell loved to skewer that stuff.-- MarshallPoe
I'm a moron tho, so don't try to explain.-- MarshallPoe
Simply put, stealing a cookbook from Border's is theft, Xeroxing your favorite recipe in a cookbook and sending it your Aunt Martha is copyright infringement.
The "It's Not Fair" argument... Since when is life fair? There are many hugely inefficient, bureaucratic systems filled with middlemen (who's rules have been codified into law) we all have to deal with. We don't get to pick and choose which ones we like and which ones we don't have to deal with. ... Look, there are problems with the copyright system, but this information-should-be-free bullshit has got to stop. It's just not realistic. -- SweetJesus
Honestly, if artists and creators don't get paid to create their works any more (e.g., copyright), you're going to see less artists creating. -- docjohn
(A)(i) does not have actual knowledge that the material or an activity using the material on the system or network is infringing;
(ii) in the absence of such actual knowledge, is not aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent; or
(iii) upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material;
(B) does not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity, in a case in which the service provider has the right and ability to control such activity; and
(C) upon notification of claimed infringement as described in paragraph (3), responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity.
« Older The History Of Dance... | When Wild Coyotes in San Franc... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt