[cc-community] An online place to post

Lloyd cc at phizz.demon.co.uk
Wed Jun 18 16:36:01 EDT 2008


drew Roberts wrote:
> On Sunday 15 June 2008 06:55, Lloyd wrote:
>> drew Roberts wrote:
>>> On Thursday 05 June 2008 23:11:30 jonathon wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 7:29 PM, Bobbie  wrote:
>>>>> One could probably spend most of every day online trolling for illegal
>>>>> use of our materials: it almost makes one decide to stop designing new
>>>>> patterns, kits, books, etc...
>>>> Why don't you retain a law firm to file DMCA take down notices on your
>>>> behalf, and to pursue civil, and or criminal copyright violations
>>>> against those whoa re infringing upon your copyrights?
>>> I would guess it is the hassle, expense, and poor cost/benefit ratio...
>>>
>>> People want places like youtube to guess which content is authorized and
>>> which is not and proactively police postings. (Could be impossible or
>>> close to impossible at this point, certainly so expensive for these free
>>> hosters that the services they offer to us will likely go away...)
>>>
>>> This is a difficult problem. At least, I see it as difficult. If anyone
>>> has any good, easy solutions, I would love to hear them.
>> Sue Google into oblivion. 
> 
> Not a good solution for those of us who want to operate outside of the old 
> copyright game though is it?
> 

But you don't operate outside of the "old copyright game". The CC 
operates full square within the copyright system.


> 
>> The violating
>> material brings in the clicks to the site and thus gives the hosting
>> site an opportunity to deliver ad impressions.
> 
> I am sure no non-violating material has a part in this.
> 

It may have a part but the main draw to youtube is the copyright 
material. Put the name of some band into youtube search and what you get 
is their greatest hits, videos with millions of hits which are either 
direct rips from MTV or a still image of the band which lasts for the 
duration of the track. Without the MTV stuff and clips from TV programs 
Youtube is, for the most part, "You've Been Framed" wannabe stuff, or 
"Babies first steps" for grandma.

That's not to say that original content isn't there but its not what 
youtube is about.



>> Google, and other hosting 
>> sites cynically hide behind their safe-harbour status whilst allowing
>> their users to infringe on copyright.
> 
> Why is this cynical? The DMCA already gives too much power to the big 
> copyright players. And now they don't like how the law that they asked for 
> works?


I don't give a fig for the big copyright players, they can always take 
care of themselves.



>> For all the brouhaha about the DMCA it is the most effective way that an
>> independent content creator can get some redress. Very few actually want
>> to sue a blogger or uploader.
> 
> So, you don't want to deal with the person that you think actually violated 
> your copyrights?
> 


No one said that. One may well contact the uploader first, the problem 
is that most take the attitude that if its on the interweb its free to 
use. There is absolutely no sense in arguing with most of them. If 
someone is using my stuff in a commercial setting I want them to stop, 
and I want them to stop within a short period of time.


>> Not only is it expensive, but the only way 
>> you'll get compensation is if the work happens to be registered with the
>> US copyright office, and entitled to statutory damages.
> 
> So, it is not worth it to you to stop the copyright violations? (I don't like 
> the statutory damages myself.) You can't actually prove you have been damaged 
> by the violations of your copyrights?
>

Why should you have to prove the you have been damaged?

I don't sell my stuff I have no interest in selling it, what I make 
available is there to be used by anyone non-commercially, not because I 
want to retain the rights to exploit them commercially but because in 
general I don't want them to be used commercially.




>> Most small 
>> producers don't register their copyright as it could in the past be
>> cumbersome, and time consuming.
> 
> Strange how the law always seems to benefit the big boys somehow...
> 


Just because a law might benefit 'the big boys' doesn't mean that it 
can't be used by others too.


>> What one wants is the violation to stop 
> 
> Why would you want it to stop if it is not harming you?
> 

See above.


>> Flickr happens to be one of the few sites that will not tolerate users
>> uploading infringing material. The DMCA can be sent by email, and if the
>> account is an obvious repository of stuff from other source it will be
>> deleted.
> 
> And the offender can't just sign up again with a new email address and do the 
> whole thing again?
> 

On flickr the answer is both yes and no. Repeat offenders can have their 
accounts deleted within hours of rejoining, even if they upload no new 
material.




More information about the cc-community mailing list