Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
Surely what matters is a site's response to the posting of such material? If the site has an active policy of encouraging users to report infringing material (as Wiki does - never used Twitter, so I can't comment on that), then I suspect that it's unlikely to fall foul of the law.
|
That's all nice on paper... in practice users aren't going to report things very often, unless they are explicit in nature, and even when they do it takes considerable man power to verify each and every complaint.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
The example posted, though, was film clips and covers of popular songs. Both of those are very likely to be infringing. A film clip COULD be fair use if it's being used for purposes of academic criticism, for example, but that seems pretty unlikely on YouTube.
|
It doesn't matter if something actually infringes copyright law. The media corporations have shown that they can and will abuse any power given to them. And that's the biggest problem with these bills: it gives too much power to the corporations. Copyright law is, at least in the United States, supposed to balance the rights of the copyright holder with the rights of the general public. Yet in recent years it has shifted far too much to the former.