tagged w/ Online Copyright Infringement
-
Those who were fortunate enough to know about Seeqpod prepare yourself for some
unfortunate news, Seeqpod is officially off the web. Seeqpod, for those unknowing was a
search engine that searched for different kinds of media from all over the web and claimed
to index over 13 million tracks and files. Using an API (Application programming interface) it
searched the internet for files, but didn't filter out music files that may be breaking copyright
laws.
EMI one of the leading music companies, along with Warner Brothers music and Capitol
records launched a lawsuit against Seeqpod and it's CEO Kazian Franks as well as other
members of the company for copyright infringement and billions of dollars in damages.
Seeqpod claimed it linked the music from other sites but didn't actually host it, similar to
the popular site you tube, and claimed defense under Title II: Online Copyright Infringement
Liability Limitation Act, and the OCILLA (Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation
Act) but to no avail.
Seeqpod filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on April 1st 2009 and on April 24 went off line
for good.
From one side of the argument, music should be free and shared between the online
community. Internet music sites have been beneficial to the record companies not harmful.
They can be used as great tools to gain interest in bands. Music companies are greedy and
sites such as Pandora.com and Seeqpod should not be attacked.
From the other side, Artists and production have to be paid. The money that the companies
take for every song played goes to the biz. They feel they should be rewarded fairly for
taking the risks of creating a successful band. While the internet companies can just find
popular bands, record companies have to actually create them.
What do you think, is this a step forward or a leap back?Those who were fortunate enough to know about Seeqpod prepare yourself for some... more
-
-
Remember how the RIAA was getting ISPs to help battle copyright infringers after they gave up lawsuits, and AT&T was all "no comment"? Now AT&T and Comcast admit, yep, they're working with the RIAA.
AT&T says they're not doing any of the actual spotting—the RIAA is handling that part—they're just "forwarding notices from content providers to our customers" to edumacate them. Cnet's Greg Sandoval reports that a Comcast executive not only confirmed their part of the RIAA's new buddy group—which includes AT&T, Comcast and Cox—but said that they've sent customers two million warning notices about infringement.Remember how the RIAA was getting ISPs to help battle copyright infringers after they... more
-
-
lvp
-
added this
-
8 months ago
- |
-
Kal Raustiala, Professor, UCLA Law School speaking about how America's obsession with intellectual property could work against us.
Kal Raustiala, Professor, UCLA Law School speaking about how America's obsession... more
-
-
by Catherine Holahan// BusinessWeek
Viacom's suit seeks a better way to remove copyright-violating YouTube uploads. Why don't content creators and Web sites both foot the bill?
To hear Google (GOOG) tell it, Viacom (VIA) wants to unravel the social Web. If Viacom had its druthers, Web sites that rely on user-generated content would be held responsible when users upload material that violates copyrights, Google argues in a public response to Viacom's $1 billion lawsuit accusing Google of copyright infringement.
The implication, Google argues, is that services like video-sharing site YouTube would have trouble getting off the ground. "Viacom's lawsuit challenges the protections of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act that Congress enacted a decade ago to encourage the development of services like YouTube," Google wrote in its May 26 response. "Congress recognized that such services could not and would not exist if they faced liability for copyright infringement based on materials users uploaded to their services."
Google is only partly right. It's true that doing away with certain DMCA protections—such as those that shield Internet companies from liability for distributed content—would indeed hamper many sites. After all, it's nearly impossible for companies to ensure that all the videos, photos, comments, and other content uploaded to sites don't violate copyrights. Even if such omniscient content screening were possible, it would undoubtedly be cost-prohibitive for all but the largest players.
But Viacom isn't looking to dismantle the DMCA, though its suit does point to a major flaw in the law that Web sites and media companies both must address: what to do when infringing content is taken down but then immediately put back online. "Even after it [YouTube] receives a notice from a copyright owner, in many instances the very same infringing video remains on YouTube because it was uploaded by at least one other user, or appears on YouTube again within hours of its removal," Viacom says in its complaint...
-----
Full story at link.
by Catherine Holahan// BusinessWeek
Viacom's suit seeks a better way to remove... more
-
-
Is your seat belt on? Prepare to ruminate...it's gonna be a bumpy ride.
"In February, last year Comedy Central's parent company Viacom served YouTube and Google with a lawsuit seeking more than a billion dollars in damages. The crime? Copyright infringement. The company says that YouTube contained over 160,000 unathorized clips from programmes Viacom owns, including "South Park" and "The Colbert Report." In cases like this, the copyright issue seems clear, but there are other circumstances where the dividing lines are blurry. Video mashups that use multiple sources, lipsynching videos, and even clips where amateurs re-stage famous sketches, could all be on shaky legal ground.
"If you're using someone else's video, music or images, or even someone else's script without permission, then you could be infringing copyright," says Gavin McGinty.
"It doesn't particularly matter if the clip is short: "Copyright infringement is copying a substantial part of a work, either in a qualitative or quantitative sense," he says. "For example, you could put a five-second clip from "The Daily Show" in a video mashup. If that five seconds was the funniest part, that could be seen as substantial."
"The rule of thumb is, if you're likely to be able to spot the origin of the source material, then it's likely to be a substantial part. A valid defense may be 'fair dealing', which is similar but by no means identical tothe American concept of 'fair use'.
"Fair dealing enables you to use small parts of works for personal, noncommercial purposes. The classic examples are research and private study. That wouldn't normally cover posting video online, though. The American version, 'fair use', is so much wider than the UK version."
"In this case, it may depend on where a lawsuit is raised. "You have the issue that the content is accessible in any country in the world. Big media companies have clearance departments to make sure that everything shown in a work is cleared everywhere it's shown."
as gleaned from a recent "Future, Media with Passion" Future Publishing Ltd article
by Gavin McGinty
Technology and Commercial Lawyer at Pinsent Masons
www.pinsentmasons.com
imho this is currently a bigger issue than "climate change" with as many or more future ramifications for culture, creativity and the free expression of ideas.
other valuable resources:
http://freeculture.org/
http://www.lessig.org/
among others I'm sure =D Is your seat belt on? Prepare to ruminate...it's gonna be a bumpy ride.
"In... more
-
-
echoz
-
added this
-
1 year ago
- |
-
Belem is also home to one of Brazil's most thriving pop scenes: tecnobrega, a musical movement that's expanding exponentially thanks to musicians and producers who see copying as a marketing tool rather than intellectual property theft.Belem is also home to one of Brazil's most thriving pop scenes: tecnobrega, a musical... more
-
-
khsing
-
added this
-
2 years ago
- |
-
The recent $222,000 bill handed out by the RIAA to an online music sharer has made legal ramifications from file sharing a reality. So are the big-time file sharers now in hiding as a result? This is hardly the case, as this story suggests.The recent $222,000 bill handed out by the RIAA to an online music sharer has made... more
-
-
khsing
-
added this
-
2 years ago
- |
-
Amazon's new DRM-free mp3 store has a very restrictive user agreement, which requires user to agree "that you will not redistribute, transmit, assign, sell, broadcast, rent, share, lend, modify, adapt, edit, sub-license or otherwise transfer or use the Digital Content."
What does this mean? If you use Amazon MP3 in your pods, you'll be violating the Amazon's user agreement, even if Current's music department clears it with the record label. Fair use is also potentially excluded, since this is restrictions in addition to standard copyright.
Amazon's new DRM-free mp3 store has a very restrictive user agreement, which requires... more
-
-
MessyP
-
added this
-
2 years ago
- |
-
Hmmm...you can request any movie, even one which hasn't come out yet. Then someone finds it for you on the internet. (For example, request "Rush Hour 3" and *kazam!* it's playing on your monitor...even though it's still in theaters now) An invitation to be part of a band of thieves? or a clever way to round up all those Naughty McPiratesons? I think I'll stick to Netflix until we figure out a way to get the people what they want, when they want it, and still get paid. Hmmm...you can request any movie, even one which hasn't come out yet. Then someone... more
-
-
sajh
-
added this
-
2 years ago
- |
-
First, it was the recording industry going after illegal file sharing. Now, it's an anime distributor.First, it was the recording industry going after illegal file sharing. Now, it's an... more
-
-
Well, this should be good for a laugh: In its pending copyright spat with Viacom, Google has listed comedians Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert as some of the Viacom employees it wants to depose, Silicon Alley Insider reports. No doubt it wants the fake newsmen to fess up to how much of their popularity they owe to free distribution on Google's YouTube.
Well, this should be good for a laugh: In its pending copyright spat with Viacom,... more
-
-
Big media companies like Viacom, constrained by the limits of copyright law and Google's recalcitrance, are forced to pay companies like Los Gatos-based BayTSP, which specializes in snooping file sharers and protecting copyrights, to slog through YouTube's bloated index searching for infringements.Big media companies like Viacom, constrained by the limits of copyright law and... more
-
-
Fighting on behalf of creators and not just as a suit out for a better deal term, Bob Tur is another modern-day David worth watching...Fighting on behalf of creators and not just as a suit out for a better deal term, Bob... more
-
-
Guardian: Digital rights management is a lie concocted to bilk the entertainment industry out of a fortune - it's time to wake up.Guardian: Digital rights management is a lie concocted to bilk the entertainment... more
-
-
khsing
-
added this
-
2 years ago
- |
-
BBC: Social networks are changing the way people consume music at a time when piracy is on the rise and the rate of growth of legal downloads has slowed.BBC: Social networks are changing the way people consume music at a time when piracy... more
-
-
khsing
-
added this
-
2 years ago
- |
-
NYT: New technology would allow owners of videos to provide a digital fingerprint to automatically remove any video that infringes copyrights.NYT: New technology would allow owners of videos to provide a digital fingerprint to... more
-
-
khsing
-
added this
-
2 years ago
- |
-
If you can't beat 'em, join 'em...Warners drops their pending litigation and is now promoting itself and rev-sharing on Imeem.If you can't beat 'em, join 'em...Warners drops their pending litigation and is now... more
-
