Not necessarily. As the indictment clearly describes, the allegations are of a considerable degree of direct involvement in infringing activities that would be absent in that situation. The indictment effectively says that the entire business model, from site design to the activities of the defendants, was directed to encouraging infringement, and profiting from it.Originally Posted by roachcoach
I didn't mean MU in isolation Saracen, I meant locker sites in general. Rapidshare say they aren't worried, for example. I wonder if they should be?
I'd disagree that they can tell if they're hosting copyrighted content illegally, I do not believe they realistically can. They can tell if an item matches a name/checksum/whatever, but what they cannot realistically do is verify that the uploader owns the rights.
Now, I grant you, most would probably not have rights. However it seems a number of big names on the hip-hop scene were uploading their own work for distribution to megaupload. Copyright work? Absolutely. Illegal? Nope. Look at viacomes/youtube suit - viacom complaining about copyright work on youtube it put there itself.
I think there needs to be a barrier between hosts and users. Checking content alone is not (imo) sufficient. Particularly if someone did start up where megaupload left off and allow artists to publish work, pay them from ad revenue and allow users to download for free (its the future). [Its my view that this is the real fear - not the 'piracy' - but the death knell of big labels. People are now able to self publish and get a payout from their work whilst users download for free. Everybody, except the existing 'big labels', wins.]
I've cited MU more than I'd have liked here, so I should add its my view that the MU issue is too clouded/one sided at the moment to make a judgement on. By its nature an indictment is GOING to make them sound pretty damned guiltyI'm waiting on more information.
Damned cross posting again
I was meaning of filesonic felt threatened/fearful and according to ars:
It's worth noting that FileSonic, like RapidShare, already has strong procedures in place to combat piracy. FileSonic uses digital fingerprinting technology from a content identification firm called Vobile to detect copyrighted material on its network and prohibit unauthorized sharing.
FileSonic also responds to takedown requests issued under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) by removing pirated content and blocking users who repeatedly infringe. The company has a designated DMCA agent and provides instructions for submitting a claim. They also allow individual users to report abuse.
That being true (maybe it is not) its a VERY nasty chilling effect across locker sites - if a company with those safeguards in place worries about safe harbour (or worries about the lack thereof) then there's a sword of Damocles hanging over hosts.
Obviously if that's not true then my point is moot, rapidshare did say they have no fear (possibly having multiple court wins under the belt being a factor)
Last edited by roachcoach; 23-01-2012 at 12:38 PM.
Indeed.....
Nice explanation.Not that I'd want to reproduce an article - much easier just to put in the URL, although I forsee problems perhaps in reproducing content which is normally subscription only - like the Murdoch empire's infamous "paywall".
That, perhaps, makes the point. Copyright is really about allowing the owner of the rights to determine if and when the work is used, subject only to those statutory exemptions.
As an individual, if I produce work, I have the right to determine, subject to those exemptions, what it's used for. For example, I might produce a political essay. Other than the statutory exemptions, I'm unlikely to allow any political party to use it (assuming they should wish to, of course) because it might be taken as endorsing that party, and I doubt I'd wish to do that. Should I take a stunning picture of a wild tiger, I might allow the World Wildlife Fund to use it, or I might sell rights to use it to National Geographic, but I'm not likely to allow a gun manufacturer to use it to promote their hunting rifles. I might allow a UK magazine to reproduce it (for a fee) but not allow them to put it on the internet or to use it outside the UK, perhaps because I already have rights sold, or given away, overseas. Or I might allow a UK charity to use it gratis, but require a US charity to pay for it, if they wanted to use it. It's about my right, as the rights owner (and in that case, the creator) to control when and if the work is used. Partly, it's about money, but it's not the only aspect.
And also, I perhaps ought to declare an interest. As a writer, I have several thousand "works" that are protected by copyright. And I mean, stuff with a commercial value, albeit perhaps a small one, in that I've been paid for it. The work of an amateur or hobby writer would still be protected, but may well be of less direct value, especially if it isn't any good. They still have the ability to prevent it's use to support, or imply support, for activities they would not wish to endorse, even if the commercial value is minimal.
Anyway, I found one company that bought UK rights (FBSR), and then used the work abroad without permission. After a "chat" with them, a cheque arrived for compensation for all the infringing use. We also amended the contract, and increased the fees, to cover future overseas use.
If you mean what I think you mean, I disagree vehemently. Publishing a work, even on the internet, cannot be taken to give presumption it's in the public domain. Emphatically not. It's in the public domain if and only if the rights owner explicitly puts it there. Otherwise, it's protected.
If, as a rights owner, I put a work on a website, the only presumption is that it can be used for what that website is for, by that site, or for any other use for which a statutory exemption applies. If I put a photo on HEXUS, the presumption is that visitors can HEXUS can view it on HEXUS, not that any other site can use it, or that that visitor can use it themselves, including simply printing it and hanging it on their wall, though that latter use might be hard to detect.
My greatest problem is with the restrictions placed on content such as movies and music that they don't allow you to remove DRM or create personal copies for use on other devices anymore, in attempting to block copyright infringement, most content is no long available even at a price, under workable conditions.If you mean what I think you mean, I disagree vehemently. Publishing a work, even on the internet, cannot be taken to give presumption it's in the public domain. Emphatically not. It's in the public domain if and only if the rights owner explicitly puts it there. Otherwise, it's protected.
If, as a rights owner, I put a work on a website, the only presumption is that it can be used for what that website is for, by that site, or for any other use for which a statutory exemption applies. If I put a photo on HEXUS, the presumption is that visitors can HEXUS can view it on HEXUS, not that any other site can use it, or that that visitor can use it themselves, including simply printing it and hanging it on their wall, though that latter use might be hard to detect.
For example, come Xmas we have family and friends round and fire up the old sing-star, over the past years I've paid for and downloaded many extra videos, however I was unable to access these when the time came and it mattered as I was using a different console, despite using the same account and disk that I had made the purchases with. The same goes for iTunes purchases on other devices etc etc.
I'm also of the opinion that when it comes to works of art, copyright is a tricky subject, music and movies for example quickly becomes viral and in the public domain whether or not officially so, at which point people think things like "I must listen to that song/watch that movie to know what everyone's talking about" whether or not it's something they may even appreciate or enjoy, which again is hard to gauge until you've seen it once, but you're required to pay up front, even though the very nature of art is subjective.
I've said it a million times but I think there are better systems out there and better uses of the internet to legally distribute content that are being ignored out of greed. Understand this veers off from directly discussing copyright however it's a key factor that leads to the violation of it.
I think we have to distinguish between technical barriers and legal ones. A technical barrier, and/or removal, is a different issue from whether we legally can copy or not. And that latter ability varies considerably from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, with the US being rather more liberal than the UK. Personal "fair use" copying is more legitimised than here, where it's effectively a legal no-no. That doesn't stop people, of course, and it hasn't since people bought an LP and then recorded onto audio cassette for the car .... or the grand-daddy of personal stereos and the ancestry of the iPod, etc, the Walkman.
As for DRM, I've had enough 'arguments' on here, often when I say I won't use Steam for games, even if that means doing without the game altogether. So you'll get no argument from me on that one. My solution for DRM, or rather, unacceptably intrusive DRM, is simply abstaining from the product that uses it entirely.
Its because of the reward schemes, sites like Rapidshare dont have a problem.
Its a pain actually, as i had a FileSonic premium account
Companies who offer internet services need to withdraw from copyright fascism countries entirely. It's only going to get worse in those places.
This issue is solvable without having to close down these companies - they just need to change how they operate. Their very nature will always attract people who want to share illegal content, but right now they just make it way too easy.
Many don't require accounts for downloading, there is little to no verification on uploader accounts, next to no content verification..and so on.
Simple things like requiring an account to access a file, or even better to require the uploader to share files with an account (Rather than to a group or the public) would make it much more difficult for them to be used for warez.
It's not a new problem - heck back when i was involved in some HTTP sites (as a naughty teenager..I am reformed now) we had tools that would go and create a few hundred Geocities or Tripod accounts for us to use for uploads - they were so easy to create and use as they had no verification apart from a captcha (which are useless in real life..so easy to defeat). Those accounts stopped being useful because of the file size limitations (10mb max iirc) and because yahoo/tripod got really good at spotting these accounts.
I don't know how these services are used today but I imagine it's on the same lines. More use of account filtering and content tracking would make a huge difference and allow the sites to be use legitimately as well as being used by pirates.
There is a fine line between ease of use and blocking piracy - but at the moment these sites are becoming almost as much of a problem as bit torrent sharing - if not moreso as you don't even need half a brain to use them, at least with BT you have to install a client.
CAPTCHAs are already easier for machines to understand than people. Uploaded content requires intelligence and research to check for copyright status. It's just not possible to stop filesharing without ruinous amounts of manual labour. All this nonsense is irrational folly which is damaging the internet.
I'm telling you, megaupload WAS onto something letting artists upload works there and paying them a slice of ad revenue.
Artist compensated? Check
User getting [free] service they want? Check
Seriously, I'm looking for a downside and not seeing it.
stop it 100%? I agree.
Make it difficult so that the general public will find it a pain the backside to pirate? Easy.
Content verification systems are already quite advanced - well beyond the simple filename checks that they used to impose. The tech is there, it just needs investment and to be picked up.
Certain file sharing websites don't want to do this as most of their revenue comes direct from the pirated file shares (through advertising)..so business wise it's not in their best interests to prevent piracy.
Roachcoach - that approach will work for many types of content, but it's an all or nothing thing - unless every file hosted by them is under the same regulations, it's pointless. If everyone on both sides agreed then it would work, but the reality is different sadly
The crooked middlemen scumbag record companies don't get their slice...
Oh I suspect many artists and many consumers would want it to work. Plus, if it gets big enough, it'll snowball and EVERYONE will flock to it (rather like the success of facebook)
Doddery old senators claiming a 'label' paycheck...on the other hand......
Exactly.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
