Posts by 3410
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I linked wrong, but it could've been any of millions. Like it or not, there are an enormous amount of YouTube vids where the poster is clearly not the copyright holder.
-
Jeez, you gotta be quick 'round here.
Also, because YouTube always acts with dispatch to take down material under the DMCA -- or, as is increasingly the case, offers the claimant a slice of adjacent advertising revenue -- it could certainly be argued that there is no copyright claim on anything you can see on YouTube.
That's stretching it a bit, don't you think?
-
Thanks, Mark. IANAL either, but I think I disagree.
**175A Transient reproduction of recording of performance**
A reproduction of a recording of a performance of a work does not infringe the rights conferred by this Part in the recording if the reproduction—
“(a) is transient or incidental; and
“(b) is a necessary part of a technological process for the viewing of, or listening to, the recording by a member of the public to whom the recording is lawfully made available; and
“(c) has no independent economic significance.”Therefore, if the content is not "lawfully made available" to the viewer, the viewer will have committed an infringement.
If the content contains infringing material, such as, presumably, does this one, for example, then you will be comitting an infringement by viewing it.
Have I got this wrong?
-
I'm not seeing how that is any more problematic than if its not the case.
Well, for one thing, you don't know if a vid contains infringing material until after you've seen ("downloaded") it. The same argument doesn't quite hold for torrents, etc.
The act does provide some leeway for transient copies, which is mainly to protect ISPs and other servers en route - I'm unsure whether the copy in your cache file would be considered non-transient.
So am I; that's why I ask. Can someone point us to the relevant wording?
-
If that somehow was over the internets, it's "downloading"
Well, yes, precicely. For the purposes of the Act, I mean. I'm sure you see the problem here if watching an infringing YouTube was to be considered an infringement.
-
or rather,
Is watching a YouTube considered downloading?
-
Is watching a YouTube is considered downloading?
-
92A Internet service provider must have policy for terminating
accounts of repeat infringers
“(1) An Internet service provider must adopt and reasonably implement
a policy that provides for termination, in appropriate circumstances,
of the account with that Internet service provider
of a repeat infringer.“(2) In subsection (1), repeat infringer means a person who repeatedly
infringes the copyright in a work by using 1 or more
of the Internet services of the Internet service provider to do a
restricted act without the consent of the copyright owner.Does (or not) the "reasonably" oblige ISPs to terminate only in "reasonable" circumstances?
-
Totally O/T, but I wouldn't want this serious revelation to pass without notice.
Police have hired one of the country's top lawyers to investigate a former officer's stunning confession that he lied in court - and wrongfully sent at least 150 people to prison.
It is exactly what some of us feared might've been happening when the Police were so much in discussion around here, a year or so ago.
Note that O'Brien claims he was ordered to lie, by his superiors.
-
LOL, Stephen.