Video Sharing Site Procedures
Video Sharing Site Procedures and Specifically Youtube
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998, adds a new section 512 to the Copyright Act and creates safe harbors (limitations on liability) for © infringement by online service providers. It defines service provider as a provider of online services or network access, or the operator of facilities therefore. It is obvious that video sharing sites like Youtube is counted in this definition. The section lays down four categories and they all have to meet these two overall conditions to be eligible for these limitations:
1) Service provider must adopt and reasonably implement a policy of terminating in appropriate circumstances the accounts of subscribers who are repeat infringers
2) It must accommodate and not interfere with standard technical measures. §512(i)
Standard technical measures are defined as measures that © owners use to identify or protect copyrighted works, that have been developed pursuant to a broad consensus of copyright owners and service providers in an open, fair and voluntary multi-industry process, are avaible to anyone on reasonable nondiscriminatory terms, and do not impose substantial costs and burdens on service providers.
§512(c) limits the liability of service providers for infringing material on websites hosted on their systems:
(c) Information residing on systems or networks at direction of users.
(1) In general. A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the storage at the direction of a user of material that resides on a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider, if the service provider--
(A) (i) does not have actual knowledge that the material or an activity using the material on the system or network is infringing;
(ii) in the absence of such actual knowledge, is not aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent; or
(iii) upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material;
(B) does not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity, in a case in which the service provider has the right and ability to control such activity; and
(C) upon notification of claimed infringement as described in paragraph (3), responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity.
(2) Designated agent. The limitations on liability established in this subsection apply to a service provider only if the service provider has designated an agent to receive notifications of claimed infringement described in paragraph (3), by making available through its service, including on its website in a location accessible to the public, and by providing to the Copyright Office, substantially the following information:
(A) the name, address, phone number, and electronic mail address of the agent.
(B) other contact information which the Register of Copyrights may deem appropriate.
The Register of Copyrights shall maintain a current directory of agents available to the public for inspection, including through the Internet, in both electronic and hard copy formats, and may require payment of a fee by service providers to cover the costs of maintaining the directory.
(3) Elements of notification.
(A) To be effective under this subsection, a notification of claimed infringement must be a written communication provided to the designated agent of a service provider that includes substantially the following:
(i) A physical or electronic signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
(ii) Identification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed, or, if multiple copyrighted works at a single online site are covered by a single notification, a representative list of such works at that site.
(iii) Identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity and that is to be removed or access to which is to be disabled, and information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to locate the material.
(iv) Information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to contact the complaining party, such as an address, telephone number, and, if available, an electronic mail address at which the complaining party may be contacted.
(v) A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.
(vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
(B) (i) Subject to clause (ii), a notification from a copyright owner or from a person authorized to act on behalf of the copyright owner that fails to comply substantially with the provisions of subparagraph (A) shall not be considered under paragraph (1)(A) in determining whether a service provider has actual knowledge or is aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent.
(ii) In a case in which the notification that is provided to the service provider's designated agent fails to comply substantially with all the provisions of subparagraph (A) but substantially complies with clauses (ii), (iii), and (iv) of subparagraph (A), clause (i) of this subparagraph applies only if the service provider promptly attempts to contact the person making the notification or takes other reasonable steps to assist in the receipt of notification that substantially complies with all the provisions of subparagraph (A).
SUPREME COURT- Grokster Case: The court expanded the Copyright Act to cover a form of liability providing technology that induces copyright infringement. It announced this new form of liability even tough at precisely the same time Congress was holding hearings about whether to amend the Copyright Act to create the same liability. According to this case, anyone who induces and eases the copyright infringment will be liable: Distributor of peer-to-peer file sharing computer networking software had the requisite intent to render it liable under the inducement doctrine for copyright infringement committed by its users; some internal communications and advertising designs expressed an intent to target a community well-known for copyright infringement, the distributor ensured its technology had infringing capabilities and did not attempt to develop filtering tools or other means of diminishing the use of its products for infringement, it provided users with technical assistance for playback of copyrighted content, and its business model depended on high-volume use of its software, which was overwhelmingly infringing. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd 454 F.Supp.2d 966 C.D.Cal.,2006.
CURRENT RULES AND PROCEDURES OF THE LEADING VIDEO-SHARING SITE-YOUTUBE:
Youtube has procedures which provide copyright owners to send an infringement notification within the requirements of 512(c)3. In addition, to ease this process, it brings a tool (Copyright Verification Tool) that allows copyright owners to search for material that is claimed to be infringing, and to automatically provide YouTube with information reasonably sufficient to permit them to locate that material. After the proper notification notice, YouTube removes the video immediately.
To prevent removals based on unfair and false infringement claims, YouTube also provides counter-notification process to the posters of the removed video. After getting the proper counter-notification, YouTube puts the video back in 10-14 days, unless the alleged copyright owner does not take the conflict to the court.
Except these, YouTube also educates users on Copyright issues by explaining all the aspects of copyright in details.
YouTube, has features like set your video as private-public, share, embed to another website. If the user choose the option keep your video private, only he and his friends can view the video while he also can embed it to his website and open it to public by using YouTubes library.
YouTube gives the users limited search function of 1.000 video clips for any given search.
Finally, YouTube knows what is being added and use this control to screen and filter out 1) pornographic and profane content, 2) the videos that belong to the copyright owners as BBC and CBS who has made a license agreement with YouTube.
CONFLICTS ON YOUTUBES COPYRIGHT POLICY
Viacom International, owner of some of the most popular programming freely coursing across the internet, filed a $1 billion copyright infringement suit on March 13, against YouTube Inc., operator of the YouTube video-sharing website. The complaint basically alleged YouTube has harnessed technology to willfully infringe copyrights on a huge scale, appropriating the value of creative content on a massive scale for YouTubes benefit without payment or license.
At the same time, Moveon.org Civic Action and Brave New Films, LL.C, files a lawsuit against Viacom, alleging that Viacom knowingly misrepresented one of the videos, which actually should have been protected under fair use doctrine, as infringing material and caused the removal of it.
NECESSARY CHANGES THAT NEED TO BE DONE ON YOUTUBES COPYRIGHT POLICY
1) The filter mentioned above should be used for all obvious copyright infringing videos automatically.
2) Once a video is removed and does not get any counter-notification in 15 days, the very same videos uploaded by other users should be removed without a need of new notifications.
3) After a copyright owner gets a verification by applying to Copyright Verification Tool, the owner should;
a. have an access to all videos including the private ones
b. be able to conduct a search without the 1.000 videos limitations.
4) Youtube should bring restrict rules on registration of the users who want to upload videos and share repeat infringers information with the infringed owners.
5) Currently, the sanction for the repeat infringers is just termination of their accounts. This should be converted to banning the user (both his ID and IP) and preventing him uploading videos.
6) There should be a tool for the third party users, to flag the video alleging that it obviously infringes a copyright. This helps to identify the videos that have been slightly altered to escape from the filter. This flag warning can be forwarded to the certified copyright owners.
ONEMLI NOT: Odev tamamen bana, Hatice Ahu Guneyli'ye ait olup, izinsiz kopyalanmasi yasaktir. Isim gosterilerek atif yapilabilir.
This assignment's all rights belong to Hatice Ahu Guneyli and unauthorized copying is not permitted. You just can legally cite it.
|Şu anda Bu Konuyu Okuyan Ziyaretçiler : 1 (0 Site Üyesi ve 1 konuk)
|Konu İçinde Arama
|Müzikseverler ve müzikle ilgilenenler için HARİKA bir video:)
|Mac'te Video Görüşmesi
|Cest la vie
|Teknoloji ve Bilgisayar
|Türk Hukuk Sitesi (1997 - 2016) © Sitenin Tüm Hakları Saklıdır. Kurallar, yararlanma şartları, site sözleşmesi ve çekinceler için buraya tıklayınız. Site içeriği izinsiz başka site ya da medyalarda yayınlanamaz. Türk Hukuk Sitesi, ağır çalışma şartları içinde büyük bir mesleki mücadele veren ve en zor koşullar altında dahi "Adalet" savaşından yılmayan Türk Hukukçuları ile Hukukun üstünlüğü ilkesine inanan tüm Hukukseverlere adanmıştır. Sitemiz ticari kaygılardan uzak, ücretsiz bir sitedir ve her meslekten hukukçular tarafından hazırlanmakta ve yönetilmektedir.