"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.*posted by ericb at 9:54 AM on July 16, 2007 [4 favorites]
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. -- MarshallPoeIt would be one thing to say "I understand what you're saying, but I disagree because..." but you're essentially saying, "I don't understand." Well, that's fine. Lots of people do understand, but it's a bit of an abstract concept and not everyone will get it. That's fine. But the law is on youtube's side whether you like it or not. Is that simple enough for you?
Orwell loved to skewer that stuff.-- MarshallPoeNo. In fact, orwell skewered the exact opposite, that is using language in a way to hide true meaning, which is exactly what you're doing. You're using the newspeak term of "Intellectual property" rather then the accurate word "copyright infringement" Copyright is not physical.
I'm a moron tho, so don't try to explain.-- MarshallPoeYes. But don't lie and say people didn't try to explain it to you. They did, just tell the truth and say that you don't understand the argument. And the reason for this is that you're, as you say, "a moron".
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.Exactly, and the victim is different, in the first case border's is the victim, and in the second the author is the victim. They are completely different laws, and completely different types of laws (criminal vs. civil, for the most part)
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. -- SweetJesusWell wait, why is that? If we don't care bout fairness then why not simply do whatever I feel like doing? There are bureaucratic systems full of officious wankers, and there are Internets full of pirates. Why is one worse then the other? If we're not worried about "fairness" then there is no basic reason not to infringe copyright, and no reason not to steal for that matter.
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. -- docjohnWell, ultimately who cares? I'd rather have my FREEDOM then 72 hours of reality TV programming produced every day. There will always be people out there want to crate art, regardless of remittance. Someone (I forget who) said that there were millions of musicians out there who would rather be famous then rich. Art is valuable, but I don't know if it's really more valuable then, for example, youtube. There is plenty of content out there, and if copyright disappeared today I could probably live my whole life simply reading and viewing content made in the past century. Plus whatever free stuff was put out there.
(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
posted by chuckdarwin at 8:17 AM on July 16, 2007