Linked by Eugenia Loli on Sat 27th Oct 2007 22:34 UTC, submitted by Kishe
Legal When her 0.29" family video was taken down by YouTube on the request of Universal MPG, the affected mother of two struck back with a lawsuit against Universal with the help of the EFF. While technically her family video might have been a copyright infringement as she had no license to include Prince's song as a background score, it is encouraging to see the public fighting back against restrictive laws that get in the way of their every day lives. My Take: I stated my own opinion on the matter on my personal blog.
Thread beginning with comment 281305
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: legal ramifications
by oma2la on Sun 28th Oct 2007 00:10 UTC in reply to "RE: legal ramifications"
oma2la
Member since:
2005-07-05

Butters, nothing I said contradicts what you have written (except that the mother is not a defendant in any suit). You are absolutely correct in saying that YouTube makes its money as a neutral third-party. What I'm saying is that its business model to some degree relies on the legal ignorance of its largely non-commercial content providers. YouTube makes money by not policing the content for infringement, and counts on copyright-holding entities not knowing or not caring about any such infringements for part of its profits.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: legal ramifications
by butters on Sun 28th Oct 2007 01:12 in reply to "RE[2]: legal ramifications"
butters Member since:
2005-07-08

There is no law whatsoever that requires YouTube to do any policing. On what basis do you suggest that YouTube should become the copyright police?

There are terms of service that explain to users that they are responsible for the content they submit. By using the service, they agree to abide by these terms. This is a very common legal mechanism that, as far as I know, it is backed up by case law to the extent that the terms themselves are legal.

We live in a society where people aren't expected to realize the potential danger of coffee unless the cup explicitly warns that it contains hot liquid. There's a limit to how ignorant people are permitted to be under the law, and it sets a shockingly low bar for common sense. If we are duly warned, then we are on our own.

Now, the mess that copyright law has become does have implications for the layman. It isn't as easy to understand copyright law as it is to understand the laws against shoplifting. This where this case comes into play, because there is a genuine difference of interpretation concerning whether or not this baby video is copyright infringement.

But people do (largely) understand that posting obviously infringing material on YouTube is illegal, and they've been warned. Coffee burns--it says so right on the cup.

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[4]: legal ramifications
by oma2la on Sun 28th Oct 2007 01:31 in reply to "RE[3]: legal ramifications"
oma2la Member since:
2005-07-05

On what basis do you suggest that YouTube should become the copyright police?

Nowhere did I suggest that YouTube should become the copyright police. I merely indicated that their right to decline to investigate the legality of the material they host contributes to their profits.

Otherwise, I broadly agree with your comments: this is a complex area.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[4]: legal ramifications
by sbergman27 on Sun 28th Oct 2007 02:45 in reply to "RE[3]: legal ramifications"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""

We live in a society where people aren't expected to realize the potential danger of coffee unless the cup explicitly warns that it contains hot liquid.

"""

I pretty much agree with your post. But this "example" gets used so frequently that I like to set the record straight. McDonalds was negligent. And the plaintiff was no more careless than most of us. That near boiling coffee, about which McDonalds had been repeatedly warned, *was* dangerous. And McDonalds got nothing more than a slap on the wrist.

http://tinyurl.com/32mzjm

Edited 2007-10-28 02:47

Reply Parent Score: 0