Certifications are different because you can choose to ignore them. Yeah, there are some cases where the licenses are so easy to obtain, they are nearly worthless, for example I'd be all for the elimination of driver licensing requirements. Although the fact that it can be revoked if you end up sucking at driving can be handy.
A business license is a vehicle for enforcing regulations. Is everyone here in favor or eliminating regulations on businesses?
I'm pretty sure there are several licenses involved in selling you that gallon of milk :)
So you'd be totally cool with people opening their own medical practice without having attended med school?
Licensing is another form of regulation (think drivers license). Whether or not it's fair depends on the licensing requirements. If the license is based on a state exam, the costs are small, and they are issued to anyone, then I think it's fair. If the license is restricted to members of a private organization or guild, then I think that's unfair and it becomes protectionist. I think we can all agree that offering free advise should not require a license. However, at least with the Ziinet, they were charging a fee, and the advise was customized for each client. This was not a blog site, and it only came up because the paying client was unhappy with the advise they were given (it was wrong).
I think it helps to break it down into two types of unions, the difference being the nature of the employer.
For most jobs there are far fewer companies than there are workers. This means that a company has a much stronger negotiating power than an individual employee (try negotiating the terms of your next cell-phone contract). The purpose of a traditional union is to even out this relationship so that the employees as a whole have the same negotiating power as the employee. This is the logical thing to do from the employee's perspective.
The second type of "union" would be one where the members are self-employed such as real estate agents, plumbers, etc. Since these workers are hired by individuals instead of a large company, they aren't needed to ensure fair pay or other negotiated items.
It's unfortunate that some unions are able to use their power to create laws barring non-union workers, or do other things that harm society as a whole, but this kind of abuse of power is a feature of any large company or organization.
Can't go after all the people doing xxxx...just not possible.
That never seems to stop them from making xxxx illegal :)
The point about jurisdiction reminds me of something I was going to add earlier. Does the blog owner reside in NC? If not, I would tell them to go pound sand, which he may have already done, based on the article's title. He is under no obligation to abide by the laws of another state.
Generally, few people have the rights to distribute content legally. A music video? I know who has the rights. Songs from a band's album with "lyrics added" by Paul92838393, I am pretty sure he doesn't have the rights. It's not hard.
Actually, on a site designed for home-made videos, I bet a heck of a lot of people have rights to distribute content. With the music video example, how do you know the video wasn't released under creative commons or the public domain. If you determine such-and-such studio is the copyright holder, how do you know who their authorized agents are, any of whom might have legally uploaded the video? We haven't even talked about fair-use which even allows for whole copying of the work in some cases.
Actually, in naked hosting, there would a URL to see the file, and nothing more. That Youtube indexes content, displays it on pre-made pages, surrounds it with advertising, and so on is something much more than just hosting.
A lot of CMS do the same thing. This isn't the 90's where every web page is a static file. There's databases which automatically index content. That the CMS and page theme have already been chosen simply reflects the fact that this is a video hosting service, not a straight web-hosting one. The difference is with a hosting company (Youtube), everything that's done with the content is completely automated and evenly applied whereas a publisher is looking at each work and making creative decisions about how to handle them.
Umm, the work is copyright. Was it the copyright holder uploading it, yes or no?
If your answer is anything other than CERTAINLY YES, then you don't put it online until you know.
Sure, but the question you're asking is obviously a question for the Youtube account holder since they are in a much better position to make this call. Youtube the company has no way to know if the person uploading is the copyright holder or was otherwise authorized by the copyright holder. Youtube handles this the way you would expect them to. They tell you in the terms of service not to upload without authorization. If you choose to ignore this rule, Youtube could cancel your account or even go after you for breach of contract. I don't know what else you can reasonably expect them to do.
Any personal blog could potentially make money from ads so this test would cover too many people, anyone who says anything which overlaps with a licensed field. The test should be whether or not the site requires money from visitors in order to view the contents.
The point is there is no such thing as "obviously offending material". I'm assuming you and some others are thinking that if it looks like a Hollywood movie then it's infringing, otherwise it's not. However you need to account for cases where the account owner was authorized to upload the film clip by the studio. Conversely, how do you know that a home movie was actually uploaded by it's copyright holder and hasn't been illegally copied?
It's a minimum standard threshold, below which the person has no business giving advice or practicing as a professional
One question then is can they be allowed to practice as an amateur? I'd say that if they were very explicit in disclosing the fact that they are not a professional then should be allowed.
I'm not sure if the liability should be higher, lower of the same for non-professionals. Are there statutory limits on malpractice liability? If he's making money, then I think there's an obvious implied warranty there and that's a risk that he will have to assume.
Re: There's no need to prescreen-- just give us good enforcement mechanisms
In fact, why not require people to log in and certify that the video is their own creation? Isn't this Internet party all about encouraging the creators who were ignored by the mainstream media? If YouTube would only get people to certify that the videos are their own creation -- and punish the people who lie-- we might actually converge on what the Internet is supposed to be.
Excellent point and one that's missed by the article's title. Besides just watching each video, throw in several hours (or months) for researching the copyright owners, if it's even possible to determine. That will push the cost into the trillions. The only sane thing to do is trust the uploaded and wait to see if anyone submits a claim of infringement. One of my fears with solutions like a database is that it will lead to large copyright holders getting better enforcement than the home movie makers. This is probably already happening. One claim of infringement and you might have all your computers confiscated. Need to do work? Sorry. Can you imagine such a thing happening if the tables were turned and a large company was accused of infringing an individual's copyright? I can't.
The problem with fair use is that it's a judicial test, not a right outlined in a statute. The criteria for fair use are subjective and is determined on a case-by-case basis. Most people simply do not have the resources to risk a lawsuit so they will settle, cease and diciest, etc. even though their actions might fall comfortably within a fair use scenario. I would like to see future legislation take this into account. Anti-SLAPP statutes are a good start in this direction, but so far they're mostly designed to reduce the cost of the defense. To be effective, they need to go further and penalize plaintiffs who are determined to have sued in bad faith. I'd like to see many of the fair use cases, news, parity and non-commercial use become part of copyright law.