On 1/21/2012 23:02, Warp wrote:
>    What I meant is that there have been cases where the situation has been
> far from clear, and almost certainly a case of completely fair use (more

Well, yes. I was just pointing out that when it *is* clear, it's not unusual 
for Google (at least) to do the right thing.  There was actually a pretty 
high-profile case just a couple months ago, with "mega" or "meta" or 
something. I don't remember the details, but the DMCA notice took it down 
immediately, and before the owner could even file the response, the outcry 
was such that someone looked at it manually and put it back up again.

>    IIRC when YouTube was sued by big corporations for distributing copyrighted
> material, courts decided that YouTube had so-called "safe harbor" status
> (in the exact same way as search engines do): They are not guilty of
> distributing copyrighted material, their users are, and YouTube itself
> is not to blame, as long as they retain a neutral stance and obey copyright
> claims and takedown requests.

Yes. That's the point of the DMCA takedown stuff. You get to take it down, 
unless the other side argues against it, and the people in the middle just 
have to follow the rules and leave it up to the courts. YouTube can't be 
deciding on their own what's legal and what isn't.

I think we're mostly in agreement here. :-)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   People tell me I am the counter-example.

Post a reply to this message