Alex, is it possible to read a copy of that paper?

(Other) Alex

---

Alexander Leavitt
Researcher
Convergence Culture Consortium (Comparative Media Studies, MIT)
Microsoft New England Research & Development
http://doalchemy.org
Twitter: <at> alexleavitt

On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 3:58 PM, Alex Kozak <akozak <at> creativecommons.org> wrote:

Yes, agreed. One of the claims I made in my research was that the requirement to filter essentially eliminates the possibility of certain business models that might be based on the fair use of copyrighted content.

On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 12:51 PM, Kevin Driscoll <driscollkevin <at> gmail.com> wrote:

It is certainly unclear but my sense is the same as Adi and Alex's in
part because of these two passages from s512:

"A service provider shall not be liable [...]
(1)(A) does not have actual knowledge that the material or activity is
infringing;
(B) in the absence of such actual knowledge, is not aware of facts or
circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent; or
(C) upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to
remove, or disable access to, the material;"

and

"(1) Accommodation of technology. — The limitations on liability
established by this section shall apply to a service provider only if
the service provider —

(A) has adopted and reasonably implemented, and informs subscribers
and account holders of the service provider's system or network of, a
policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances
of subscribers and account holders of the service provider's system or
network who are repeat infringers; and

(B) accommodates and does not interfere with standard technical measures.

(2) Definition. — As used in this subsection, the term “standard
technical measures” means technical measures that are used by
copyright owners to identify or protect copyrighted works and —"

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#512

This sets up an lose-lose situation for Google between the needs of
their users and the pressures the few large content industries. In
sum, we might say that Google has done an OK job walking that
tightrope - but the situation is a terrible one from the start.

Driscoll

> On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 12:11 PM, Kevin Donovan <kdonovan11 <at> gmail.com> wrote:
>>

>> I'm relatively ignorant on this, but isn't Google/YouTube not required by
>> law to filter content? Don't they do so to appease studios that might be
>> willing to partner with them formally? So, it wasn't the willingness to
>> filter that won the case for them, but the DMCA which recognizes the
>> inability to monitor, effectively, either through humans or algorithms, UGC,
>> right?

_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss <at> freeculture.org
http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
FAQ: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss

--
Alex Kozak
Program Assistant
Creative Commons

_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss <at> freeculture.org
http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
FAQ: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss

_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss <at> freeculture.org
http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
FAQ: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss