SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the so-long-and-thanks-for-all-the-fish? dept.
This piece of news over at Ars Technica may have some startling implications.
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act's so-called "safe harbor" defense to infringement is under fire from a paparazzi photo agency. A new court ruling says the defense may not always be available to websites that host content submitted by third parties.
A Livejournal site hosted messages of celebrities, and a paparazzi agency that owns some of those photos took exception. Since the site moderated the posts that appeared, the appeals court ruled that just shouting "safe harbour" is insufficient - the court should investigate the extent to which the moderators curated the input.
As the MPAA wrote in an amicus brief:
If the record supports Mavrix’s allegations that LiveJournal solicited and actively curated posts for the purpose of adding, rather than removing, content that was owned by third parties in order to draw traffic to its site, LiveJournal would not be entitled to summary judgment on the basis of the safe harbor...
It's hard to argue with that: a site that actively solicits and then posts content owned by others seems to fall afoul of current copyright legislation in the USA.
But I can't help thinking of the impact this may have on SoylentNews.... if left to stand, this ruling could make running a site such as SN a very tricky line to walk.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DannyB on Tuesday April 11 2017, @08:50PM (2 children)
AFAIK, SN doesn't allow file uploads. So that's good. But it might be possible to merely link to a site that itself has infringing material. And the **AA holes would like linking to be copyright infringement.
One could possibly link to an image that is copyright infringing which might really get them riled up.
But it is possible to infringe copyright merely with text.
In the above text, whose copyright is infringed, if any? Would it be fair use because it is transformative? It doesn't damage the market value of any work. It is de minimus (only names of characters are used, as well as a culturally well known four word English phrase translated from Vulcan).
Given such complex legal questions, can a site be expected to even know whether something is infringing or not? Hollywood cannot even decide if a work is infringing or not. The MPAA-holes have taken down their own videos with their left hand which didn't know that the right hand of marketing had uploaded those same videos. Or the RIAA has taken down music uploaded for promotional reasons by the artists with authorization to do so.
If supposed experts in copyright can't even get simple copyright issues right, how can a site like SN be reasonably expected to get complex questions right? The **AA-holes are also required to analyze and consider fair use factors first. And swear under penalty of perjury on the DMCA complaint.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Wednesday April 12 2017, @04:49PM (1 child)
You seem to forget that originally, copyright only applied to the written word and sheet music. It still applies to the written word. Paste an Isaac simov story (Except Youth, his only work that's in the public domain) and his widow and kids will be going after you.
BUT, S/N's site managers don't moderate; that is, content is not removed, just scored by users.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday April 12 2017, @05:08PM
I understand the different meanings of the word moderate here on SN. But the **AA holes will deliberately conflate the meanings. The argument will be that if users "moderate" the content, then SN should lose safe harbor. Hopefully this won't fly. But don't count on it. The world is spiraling out of control as we watch.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.