Sponsored Adverts

Author Topic: Its a Terms of Service violation, not Copyright dispute  (Read 597 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline kat

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2186
Its a Terms of Service violation, not Copyright dispute
« on: January 22, 2014, 07:50:43 PM »
In a word, no.

Corporations (or other entity's) that 'own' the rights to stuff need a way to enforce those rights without invoking either the law or the expense typically attributed to litigating a civil crime. That rights holders do not want to be doing this in any shape or form, is quintessential to the entire issue because they, rightly or wrongly, do not feel they should be obligated to foot the bill for taking perps to court when there are absolutely NO guaranties of success or, even worse for them, they receive no "just compensation" for expending all that effort - this is why SOPA, PIPA, PPP, TPP. ACTA, all seek to make copyright infringement a wholly Criminal matter because it would then invoke the State/Government (the 'crime' then being against all of us, the "State" or "Society", rather than between private individuals, real flesh and blood, or corporations [What's the difference?]).

As it stands right now, remedy to most issues of infringement that don't involve counterfeiting etc., is sought through DMCA, the notorious "Take Down Notice" mechanism; find an infringement; file a Notice; get immediate remedy (material taken down whilst DMCA is challenged). It puts the onus on the infringing party rather than claimant (that usually comes later in Court, if it gets that far).

The problem with this for rights holders though, it's legal.

What they want is a way to issue claims WITHOUT invoking infringement under Copyright (DMCA).

They want all the privileges attributed to owning a Copy Right absent the obligations, i.e. they want the profits minus being bound by the law.

This is why YouTube's Content ID system is such a win-win for YouTube and those using the system to make claims; invocations ("soft copyright claims" as was penned above) are absent any attributable obligations, or remedy should a claim be false (in error or knowingly) as would be the case under DMCA - burden of proof is on the person against whom a claim is made (the infringing party has to prove a negative rather than the Claimant proving for the positive).

This is all done whilst presenting the issue to the end-user under the guise of claims being infringements of Copyright when, in matter of fact,  they are "colour-of-law" interpretations of simplistic Terms of Service violations - at point of upload to YouTube the end-user must state whether or not they have full rights to the materials used; in saying "yes" the end-user is making a statement of fact to YouTube, meaning subsequent claims against said-same user and their content are actually confirmatory claims the user lied to YouTube about owning uploaded content. That is a Terms of Service violation not a copyright infringement claim (which would otherwise invoke DMCA).

It's critical to understand this because in the broader context and environment YouTube Et-al can do whatever it wants without there being a hint of a whisper, of the lowest morning mist, invoking Copyright law, or breaking it - it's all about service agreements, and managing usage and abuses therein. It's bloody genius when you think about it!.

The only way 'we' win is by stripping YouTube Et al. of their ability to profit from what we do whilst they don't really feel that obligated to reward us for that effort and their massive profits (obviously one doesn't condone doing anything that break the law as it stands). We need to find alternative ways to generate revenue that properly and fully reward those making content for others to enjoy whilst preventing or mitigating the abuse of power through leveraged size that typically allows Corporations like YouTube to 'abuse' (and one can argue it's an abuse) their "commons" position ("providing services for the public good" so to speak). That's said not from any anti-capitalist/corporatist point of view, but rather one of encouraging a more rewarding and pragmatic meritocracy.

The problem is, video in particular is an extraordinarily expensive medium through which profits and rewards can be had, more so these days because consumers have been desensitized to web based advertising (due to it's continued abuse by traffic hijackers etc.) and much of anything of any worth being available for free, as a content creator this leaves few options for monetised reward in a general, none-specific way.

Apologies for the long post again :)


Offline ratty redemption

  • VIP
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 952
Re: Its a Terms of Service violation, not Copyright dispute
« Reply #1 on: January 22, 2014, 08:47:44 PM »
thanks kat, i think i understand all that. it's definitely an interesting subject, that one way or another is going to affect a lot of people, so i personally would gladly hear any thoughts you have.

 

Sponsored Adverts
RSS Content is copyright © KatsBits™ 2017 unless otherwise stated. All Rights Reserved.
No part of this web site may be reproduced (except for personal use, or otherwise stated) without prior written permission from KatsBits.com. For more infomation on copyright click here.
Web design cpdtAdvertisePrivacy PolicyDMCA (about DMCA) Home Store Workshops Blog Jobs Support About Katsbits Contact Site Search KatsBits Help Site Map RSS feed Forum YouTube FaceBook LinkedIn Twitter IMVU