[cc-community] An online place to post
zotz at 100jamz.com
Wed Jun 18 19:00:29 EDT 2008
On Wednesday 18 June 2008 16:36:01 Lloyd wrote:
> 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.
Just because we can't change the law (yet?) does not mean we cannot play a
different game on the same field... If it wasn't a different game in some
way, the GPL would not cause such consternation. (My take at least.)
> >> 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
I did not say non-copyrighted material, I said non-violating material. There
is a difference.
> 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 may be so, but I spend (I would guess) most of my time there looking at
things that I was unaware of and not searching for specifically.
> 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.
But I figure they are the ones who got the DMCA drafted to suit themselves.
And it seems it is their stuff that you seem concerned about that YouTube is
> >> 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.
So? Sue them. That is what the law provides for. (Not that I recommend that
though.) Or is there no sense in that either? If not, live with it until you
can manage to bring about a change in conditions or figure ways to overcome
the problems that such a situation causes.
> 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.
Who do you want to make them stop for you? And can you see a way to do this
that is not open to abuse?
> >> 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?
Because, that is how civil law generally works. You can't sue someone for
damages unless you can show 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.
I may be with you there for certain classes of works at least, but, from what
I can see, the law definately is not too in line with such thinking or
> >> 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.
I understand that and agree with you, but some of the problems we run into is
because the law is written with the intention of benefitting the beig boys
and so we end up with things that don't quite work for us.
> >> What one wants is the violation to stop
> > Why would you want it to stop if it is not harming you?
> See above.
Sure, and as I say, I may agree at least for certain types of works, but this
is partially a philosophical debate. That is generally quite some control to
want to exercise over the lives of others when there is no provable harm to
you to cause you to want such control over them. (That is a general you
> >> 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
How are they identified as repeat offenders?
all the best,
More information about the cc-community