A couple of points because Copyright applies to an abstract entity.
Yes. I'm just sorta spitballing here and just wondering if something like a whitelist system would even work.
1) How is content identified, it cannot be done by just using a name, or file hash? A restricted access database of licensed content would give the filters something to check against.
I'm not sure, really. Something like Google's ContentID on steroids maybe?
2) How is licensed use identified, especially as the licensed use may be more freely redistributed that the original work? For instance use of music could be licensed for use in a film under a CC license.
It would require that the rights holders are proactive in keeping their licensing information updated and there would a million details to work out, for sure. But is it possible?
3) How is fair use dealt with? this where copyright can be abused relying on the cost of taking legal action, as just consulting a legal advisor can be too much cost for many people.
My thought would be that any takedown would require a notification and some time period for a response from the supposed infringer. The supposed infringer could then declare their belief that the use is Fair Use which would leave the content in place until told otherwise by a court, like it is currently.
Perhaps you have misunderstood some of my comments. I have not stated that burdens be shifted form rights holders to service providers.
Fair enough. But there are many pushing that exact argument and I don't quite understand the logic.
What I have noted is that placing almost the entire burden on the holders in many instances is manifestly unjust, with an example being what is shown in the link.
I'm not convinced it's unjust myself. First, the rights holders are the ones benefiting from the exclusivity that copyright grants. Why shouldn't they shoulder the majority of the burden? That's the question I'd like answered.
Second, you seem to be implying that your example shows that our current system can be unfair to the rights holders. Perhaps you're right. But it's because it's a reactionary game of wac-a-mole. Why not attacking the problem from the opposite way with a whitelist type of system?
Below is an example of a situation that underlies in part my comment that imposing all burdens on a rights holder can manifestly be unfair...
Ok. But highlighting inadequacies in the current system still doesn't prove that the burden needs to be laid upon the service providers who rely on the DMCA safe harbors.
If you want really want a semblance of fairness, here are my suggestions:
- Return copyright back to "opt-in". If you value your work enough to want the protections of copyright, take 5 minutes to register it.
- Use a sliding scale fee for copyright registration. Free at first, but increasing amounts for renewals. This would allow works to begin to fall into the Public Domain like they should. This would also offset the cost of creating a whitelist database in my next bullet.
- Create a central "copyright whitelist" that is constantly updated with information from the rights holders as to copyright status, licensing schemes and approved uses.
- Keep the safe harbors for service providers with the stipulation that they keep filtering and removing unauthorized content that isn't on the whitelist. Anything that isn't registered on the whitelist is considered unprotected.
I agree completely. It is imperative that the entire burden associated with on-line infringement be placed upon the shoulders of rights holders.
As Mike indicated - you are probably being sarcastic here, but I am curious if you have an argument as to why the burden shouldn't fall to the rights holders.
I'm also curious about something else. Would you be opposed to a system where the rights holders provide (at their own cost) a comprehensive database of copyrights that includes all licensing schemes and approved uses to Google? It would have to be constantly updated and maintained by the rights holders, of course, and the system would also have to have some sort of mechanism to deal with Fair Use.
Would you consider such a compromise in a system where Google picks up the tab for actually filtering and removing, but the rights holders pick up the tab for providing Google the information to do so?
If someone breaks into your home a threatens you with a knife, the law doesn't require you to only defend yourself with a knife. You can shoot the guy, you can beat him with a baseball bat, you can throw a jar of acid at him, you can use whatever you have at hand.
Or smack the guy upside the head with a claw hammer. Like this 82-year-old gentleman did when some punk tried to break into his home. Props to Mr. Bradford for his quick reaction.
It's hilarious that Mike Masnick thought copyright infringement on the web was just going to be forever unpunished.
You really think that people who want to format-shift their legally purchased DVDs should be punished?
I mean seriously, who do think this ruling affects? It's not the hard-core uploader - they would use free, open-source alternatives. It's not the average pirate - since they would download an already de-DRMed digital file, not a DVD. The only people really affected by this is your average computer user who wants to copy their latest DVD purchase to their hard drive for convenience.
... however, when you are read into a classified program, you take and sign a separate oath, which does indeed include a promise to never divulge or make public the information you have access to.
Which oath takes precedence in a case like this where they are at odds?
I would like to say it's the Constitutional one, but it doesn't seem to work out that way in real life does it? The secrecy one is the one with real penalties for not upholding it. Should be the other way around IMHO.