[Wikimedia-l] Music industry threats to safe harbor?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
16 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Wikimedia-l] Music industry threats to safe harbor?

David Gerard-2
For various reasons * I follow music industry news. One drum the record
industry has been beating *hard* in the past year is attempts to reduce the
DMCA "safe harbor" provisions in order to squeeze more money from YouTube.
It's been a running theme through 2016.

e.g.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/20/music-industry-battling-google-youtube-what-happens-next
http://www.billboard.com/articles/business/7624389/music-industry-congratulates-trump-open-letter

The DMCA "safe harbor" is otherwise known as "how Wikipedia is allowed to
exist".

so! Is this on our threat radar? Do they have any hope? How close are we to
another "call your Congressman" banner?

(I figure this is not a good time to say things like "well that could never
happen politically")


- d.


* well, to write schadenfreude-dripping posts on rocknerd.co.uk
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Music industry threats to safe harbor?

Vi to
I wouldn't call DMCA safe harbor(s) "how Wikipedia is allowed to exist". At
a glance I'd say it would (at worst) impact on some (most) wikis way to
handle copyvios/the thin red line around fair-use, but most of our
ecosystem shouldn't be affected. So, what am I missing?

Vito

2016-12-19 17:45 GMT+01:00 David Gerard <[hidden email]>:

> For various reasons * I follow music industry news. One drum the record
> industry has been beating *hard* in the past year is attempts to reduce the
> DMCA "safe harbor" provisions in order to squeeze more money from YouTube.
> It's been a running theme through 2016.
>
> e.g.
> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/20/music-
> industry-battling-google-youtube-what-happens-next
> http://www.billboard.com/articles/business/7624389/
> music-industry-congratulates-trump-open-letter
>
> The DMCA "safe harbor" is otherwise known as "how Wikipedia is allowed to
> exist".
>
> so! Is this on our threat radar? Do they have any hope? How close are we to
> another "call your Congressman" banner?
>
> (I figure this is not a good time to say things like "well that could never
> happen politically")
>
>
> - d.
>
>
> * well, to write schadenfreude-dripping posts on rocknerd.co.uk
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Music industry threats to safe harbor?

geni
On 19 December 2016 at 18:38, Vi to <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I wouldn't call DMCA safe harbor(s) "how Wikipedia is allowed to exist". At
> a glance I'd say it would (at worst) impact on some (most) wikis way to
> handle copyvios/the thin red line around fair-use, but most of our
> ecosystem shouldn't be affected. So, what am I missing?
>

Without some form of safe harbor the likes of AP and getty would have
a fairly solid case for statutory damages for every single one of
their images uploaded even if we deleted them fairly quickly. We could
probably argue it down to $200 per image but it would still add up.

--
geni

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Music industry threats to safe harbor?

Vi to
I see, thank you for your explanation, coming from a civil law system it
sounds pretty weird. Anyway I concur, it's pure madness and some action
must be taken.

Vito

2016-12-19 19:46 GMT+01:00 geni <[hidden email]>:

> On 19 December 2016 at 18:38, Vi to <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > I wouldn't call DMCA safe harbor(s) "how Wikipedia is allowed to exist".
> At
> > a glance I'd say it would (at worst) impact on some (most) wikis way to
> > handle copyvios/the thin red line around fair-use, but most of our
> > ecosystem shouldn't be affected. So, what am I missing?
> >
>
> Without some form of safe harbor the likes of AP and getty would have
> a fairly solid case for statutory damages for every single one of
> their images uploaded even if we deleted them fairly quickly. We could
> probably argue it down to $200 per image but it would still add up.
>
> --
> geni
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Music industry threats to safe harbor?

Chuck Roslof
Throughout 2016, the US Copyright Office has been collecting input on the
DMCA safe harbors. WMF has submitted written comments to the Copyright
Office <https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/04/06/save-safe-harbors-open-web/>[1]
and participated in in-person discussions
<https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/06/16/copyright-law/>[2] on this issue.
We're currently in the process of preparing a submission as part of a second
round of Copyright Office comments
<https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/11/08/2016-26904/section-512-study-request-for-additional-comments>,
due in February.[3]

If you have questions about what's going on with the safe harbors or have
suggestions about what we should say in the second round of comments, I
encourage you to start a discussion on the public policy mailing list
<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy>[4] or email me
directly.

 - Charles

[1] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/04/06/save-safe-harbors-open-web/
[2] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/06/16/copyright-law/
[3]
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/11/08/2016-26904/section-512-study-request-for-additional-comments
[4] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy

==
Charles M. Roslof
Legal Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation
[hidden email]
(415) 839-6885

NOTICE: This message might have confidential or legally privileged
information in it. If you have received this message by accident, please
delete it and let us know about the mistake. As an attorney for the
Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical reasons I cannot give legal advice
to, or serve as a lawyer for, community members, volunteers, or staff
members in their personal capacity. For more on what this means, please see
our legal disclaimer
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Legal_Disclaimer>.

On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Vi to <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I see, thank you for your explanation, coming from a civil law system it
> sounds pretty weird. Anyway I concur, it's pure madness and some action
> must be taken.
>
> Vito
>
> 2016-12-19 19:46 GMT+01:00 geni <[hidden email]>:
>
> > On 19 December 2016 at 18:38, Vi to <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > I wouldn't call DMCA safe harbor(s) "how Wikipedia is allowed to
> exist".
> > At
> > > a glance I'd say it would (at worst) impact on some (most) wikis way to
> > > handle copyvios/the thin red line around fair-use, but most of our
> > > ecosystem shouldn't be affected. So, what am I missing?
> > >
> >
> > Without some form of safe harbor the likes of AP and getty would have
> > a fairly solid case for statutory damages for every single one of
> > their images uploaded even if we deleted them fairly quickly. We could
> > probably argue it down to $200 per image but it would still add up.
> >
> > --
> > geni
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Music industry threats to safe harbor?

David Gerard-2
Good to know :-) I was mostly just wondering if the music industry
initiative was making any headway, from an outside perspective. Because if
they chip a bit off, they won't stop there.

On 19 December 2016 at 20:22, Charles M. Roslof <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Throughout 2016, the US Copyright Office has been collecting input on the
> DMCA safe harbors. WMF has submitted written comments to the Copyright
> Office <https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/04/06/save-safe-harbors-open-web/
> >[1]
> and participated in in-person discussions
> <https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/06/16/copyright-law/>[2] on this issue.
> We're currently in the process of preparing a submission as part of a
> second
> round of Copyright Office comments
> <https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/11/08/2016-
> 26904/section-512-study-request-for-additional-comments>,
> due in February.[3]
>
> If you have questions about what's going on with the safe harbors or have
> suggestions about what we should say in the second round of comments, I
> encourage you to start a discussion on the public policy mailing list
> <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy>[4] or email me
> directly.
>
>  - Charles
>
> [1] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/04/06/save-safe-harbors-open-web/
> [2] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/06/16/copyright-law/
> [3]
> https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/11/08/2016-
> 26904/section-512-study-request-for-additional-comments
> [4] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
>
> ==
> Charles M. Roslof
> Legal Counsel
> Wikimedia Foundation
> [hidden email]
> (415) 839-6885
>
> NOTICE: This message might have confidential or legally privileged
> information in it. If you have received this message by accident, please
> delete it and let us know about the mistake. As an attorney for the
> Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical reasons I cannot give legal advice
> to, or serve as a lawyer for, community members, volunteers, or staff
> members in their personal capacity. For more on what this means, please see
> our legal disclaimer
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Legal_Disclaimer>.
>
> On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Vi to <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > I see, thank you for your explanation, coming from a civil law system it
> > sounds pretty weird. Anyway I concur, it's pure madness and some action
> > must be taken.
> >
> > Vito
> >
> > 2016-12-19 19:46 GMT+01:00 geni <[hidden email]>:
> >
> > > On 19 December 2016 at 18:38, Vi to <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > I wouldn't call DMCA safe harbor(s) "how Wikipedia is allowed to
> > exist".
> > > At
> > > > a glance I'd say it would (at worst) impact on some (most) wikis way
> to
> > > > handle copyvios/the thin red line around fair-use, but most of our
> > > > ecosystem shouldn't be affected. So, what am I missing?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Without some form of safe harbor the likes of AP and getty would have
> > > a fairly solid case for statutory damages for every single one of
> > > their images uploaded even if we deleted them fairly quickly. We could
> > > probably argue it down to $200 per image but it would still add up.
> > >
> > > --
> > > geni
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Music industry threats to safe harbor?

Lilburne
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
On 19/12/2016 16:45, David Gerard wrote:
> For various reasons * I follow music industry news. One drum the record
> industry has been beating *hard* in the past year is attempts to reduce the
> DMCA "safe harbor" provisions in order to squeeze more money from YouTube.
> It's been a running theme through 2016.
>

Oh dear! If this gets traction poor little Google, won't be able to run
their protection racket any longer. It is so worrying that a little
cellist might bring a $400 billion company to its knees.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jan/27/zoe-keating-youtube-google-music



_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Music industry threats to safe harbor?

Todd Allen
What you posted there regards contract terms between the artist and
Youtube. That's between them to fight out. If they don't like Youtube's
terms, they can take their stuff elsewhere.

DMCA safe harbor has nothing to do with contracts. It means that, if you
run an interactive web site (essentially, anything where users are allowed
to post stuff), you can't be held liable if one of your users posts
copyrighted material. The user still can be, but you, as the site operator,
cannot.

In exchange, you must provide a way that a copyright holder can contact
you, using a standard method, and tell you that they've found material that
infringes their copyright. You must then take that material down (within a
certain period, I think ten days) and provide notice to the user that
you've done so. The user can then either file a "counter notice" if they
believe the material is not infringing, which you'd send back to the
copyright holder if they choose to do so, or drop it, in which case the
material stays gone. If a counter notice is filed, the copyright holder can
at that time either take the matter up in court directly with the user, or
drop it. If they don't file in court after a counter notice, you can
automatically reinstate the material after a certain period of time. If the
DMCA notice was malicious or fraudulent, the safe harbor provision also
establishes liability against the person or entity who filed it. But as
long as you file those procedures, you, as the site operator, are immune
from liability for either the material being present to start with or for
it being taken down.

Without that protection, no one in their right mind would operate an
interactive web site, at least not in the US. It protects everything from
classic car hobbyist forums operated by a few people at their own cost, to
sites like Youtube and Facebook. None of those would be possible without
it. Or, at the very least, they would have to be operated from countries
which are, shall we say, much more lax on copyright enforcement. That's bad
for everyone, including the copyright holders--they no longer would have an
effective method of getting infringements taken down.

Since Wikimedia is DMCA-compliant, that means that, say, AP or Getty can't
sue Wikimedia if a user uploads a bunch of their images to Commons. They
would have to find and sue that user. And of course, they could file DMCA
requests to have their stuff removed. But since WMF is much easier to find
and has much deeper pockets, if they had the option of suing WMF, I
guarantee you that they would. The only thing that stops them from that is
safe harbor.

That, and Section 230 of the CDA (which excludes liability from site
operators for other types of illegal conduct like threats) are, without
exaggeration, the very reason that interactive web services can exist at
all. Without those, you'd be accepting liability for anything a user of
your site might choose to do. You'd have to be insane to do that.

Todd

On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Lilburne <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> On 19/12/2016 16:45, David Gerard wrote:
>
>> For various reasons * I follow music industry news. One drum the record
>> industry has been beating *hard* in the past year is attempts to reduce
>> the
>> DMCA "safe harbor" provisions in order to squeeze more money from YouTube.
>> It's been a running theme through 2016.
>>
>>
> Oh dear! If this gets traction poor little Google, won't be able to run
> their protection racket any longer. It is so worrying that a little cellist
> might bring a $400 billion company to its knees.
>
> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jan/27/zoe-keati
> ng-youtube-google-music
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Music industry threats to safe harbor?

Ariel Glenn WMF
The Communications Decency Act of 1996, Section 230, mentioned in Todd's
email, is the subject of a recent lawsuit:
http://fortune.com/2016/12/20/orlando-shooting-google-facebook-twitter/


Ariel


On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 11:37 PM, Todd Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> What you posted there regards contract terms between the artist and
> Youtube. That's between them to fight out. If they don't like Youtube's
> terms, they can take their stuff elsewhere.
>
> DMCA safe harbor has nothing to do with contracts. It means that, if you
> run an interactive web site (essentially, anything where users are allowed
> to post stuff), you can't be held liable if one of your users posts
> copyrighted material. The user still can be, but you, as the site operator,
> cannot.
>
> In exchange, you must provide a way that a copyright holder can contact
> you, using a standard method, and tell you that they've found material that
> infringes their copyright. You must then take that material down (within a
> certain period, I think ten days) and provide notice to the user that
> you've done so. The user can then either file a "counter notice" if they
> believe the material is not infringing, which you'd send back to the
> copyright holder if they choose to do so, or drop it, in which case the
> material stays gone. If a counter notice is filed, the copyright holder can
> at that time either take the matter up in court directly with the user, or
> drop it. If they don't file in court after a counter notice, you can
> automatically reinstate the material after a certain period of time. If the
> DMCA notice was malicious or fraudulent, the safe harbor provision also
> establishes liability against the person or entity who filed it. But as
> long as you file those procedures, you, as the site operator, are immune
> from liability for either the material being present to start with or for
> it being taken down.
>
> Without that protection, no one in their right mind would operate an
> interactive web site, at least not in the US. It protects everything from
> classic car hobbyist forums operated by a few people at their own cost, to
> sites like Youtube and Facebook. None of those would be possible without
> it. Or, at the very least, they would have to be operated from countries
> which are, shall we say, much more lax on copyright enforcement. That's bad
> for everyone, including the copyright holders--they no longer would have an
> effective method of getting infringements taken down.
>
> Since Wikimedia is DMCA-compliant, that means that, say, AP or Getty can't
> sue Wikimedia if a user uploads a bunch of their images to Commons. They
> would have to find and sue that user. And of course, they could file DMCA
> requests to have their stuff removed. But since WMF is much easier to find
> and has much deeper pockets, if they had the option of suing WMF, I
> guarantee you that they would. The only thing that stops them from that is
> safe harbor.
>
> That, and Section 230 of the CDA (which excludes liability from site
> operators for other types of illegal conduct like threats) are, without
> exaggeration, the very reason that interactive web services can exist at
> all. Without those, you'd be accepting liability for anything a user of
> your site might choose to do. You'd have to be insane to do that.
>
> Todd
>
> On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Lilburne <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > On 19/12/2016 16:45, David Gerard wrote:
> >
> >> For various reasons * I follow music industry news. One drum the record
> >> industry has been beating *hard* in the past year is attempts to reduce
> >> the
> >> DMCA "safe harbor" provisions in order to squeeze more money from
> YouTube.
> >> It's been a running theme through 2016.
> >>
> >>
> > Oh dear! If this gets traction poor little Google, won't be able to run
> > their protection racket any longer. It is so worrying that a little
> cellist
> > might bring a $400 billion company to its knees.
> >
> > https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jan/27/zoe-keati
> > ng-youtube-google-music
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> > i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Music industry threats to safe harbor?

Lilburne
Well they might have a point.

A recall that 18months ago in the wake of bad publicity Google vowed to
do something about.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jun/24/google-youtube-anti-isis-push-inhuman-beheading-videos-censorship

However it seems that once the bad publicity died down they went back to
running ads for pressure cookers, semtex, and 9 inch nails along side
those ISIS videos.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=google+isis+videos+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b&gfe_rd=cr&ei=r4ZZWPHfL4rc8AfgzqGQDg

As Justice Jackson said "The Constitution is not a suicide pact".


On 20/12/2016 16:36, Ariel Glenn WMF wrote:

> The Communications Decency Act of 1996, Section 230, mentioned in
> Todd's email, is the subject of a recent lawsuit:
> http://fortune.com/2016/12/20/orlando-shooting-google-facebook-twitter/
>
>
> Ariel
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 11:37 PM, Todd Allen <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>     What you posted there regards contract terms between the artist and
>     Youtube. That's between them to fight out. If they don't like
>     Youtube's
>     terms, they can take their stuff elsewhere.
>
>     DMCA safe harbor has nothing to do with contracts. It means that,
>     if you
>     run an interactive web site (essentially, anything where users are
>     allowed
>     to post stuff), you can't be held liable if one of your users posts
>     copyrighted material. The user still can be, but you, as the site
>     operator,
>     cannot.
>
>     In exchange, you must provide a way that a copyright holder can
>     contact
>     you, using a standard method, and tell you that they've found
>     material that
>     infringes their copyright. You must then take that material down
>     (within a
>     certain period, I think ten days) and provide notice to the user that
>     you've done so. The user can then either file a "counter notice"
>     if they
>     believe the material is not infringing, which you'd send back to the
>     copyright holder if they choose to do so, or drop it, in which
>     case the
>     material stays gone. If a counter notice is filed, the copyright
>     holder can
>     at that time either take the matter up in court directly with the
>     user, or
>     drop it. If they don't file in court after a counter notice, you can
>     automatically reinstate the material after a certain period of
>     time. If the
>     DMCA notice was malicious or fraudulent, the safe harbor provision
>     also
>     establishes liability against the person or entity who filed it.
>     But as
>     long as you file those procedures, you, as the site operator, are
>     immune
>     from liability for either the material being present to start with
>     or for
>     it being taken down.
>
>     Without that protection, no one in their right mind would operate an
>     interactive web site, at least not in the US. It protects
>     everything from
>     classic car hobbyist forums operated by a few people at their own
>     cost, to
>     sites like Youtube and Facebook. None of those would be possible
>     without
>     it. Or, at the very least, they would have to be operated from
>     countries
>     which are, shall we say, much more lax on copyright enforcement.
>     That's bad
>     for everyone, including the copyright holders--they no longer
>     would have an
>     effective method of getting infringements taken down.
>
>     Since Wikimedia is DMCA-compliant, that means that, say, AP or
>     Getty can't
>     sue Wikimedia if a user uploads a bunch of their images to
>     Commons. They
>     would have to find and sue that user. And of course, they could
>     file DMCA
>     requests to have their stuff removed. But since WMF is much easier
>     to find
>     and has much deeper pockets, if they had the option of suing WMF, I
>     guarantee you that they would. The only thing that stops them from
>     that is
>     safe harbor.
>
>     That, and Section 230 of the CDA (which excludes liability from site
>     operators for other types of illegal conduct like threats) are,
>     without
>     exaggeration, the very reason that interactive web services can
>     exist at
>     all. Without those, you'd be accepting liability for anything a
>     user of
>     your site might choose to do. You'd have to be insane to do that.
>
>     Todd
>
>     On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Lilburne
>     <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>     wrote:
>
>     > On 19/12/2016 16:45, David Gerard wrote:
>     >
>     >> For various reasons * I follow music industry news. One drum
>     the record
>     >> industry has been beating *hard* in the past year is attempts
>     to reduce
>     >> the
>     >> DMCA "safe harbor" provisions in order to squeeze more money
>     from YouTube.
>     >> It's been a running theme through 2016.
>     >>
>     >>
>     > Oh dear! If this gets traction poor little Google, won't be able
>     to run
>     > their protection racket any longer. It is so worrying that a
>     little cellist
>     > might bring a $400 billion company to its knees.
>     >
>     > https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jan/27/zoe-keati
>     <https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jan/27/zoe-keati>
>     > ng-youtube-google-music
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>     https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
>     > i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>     > New messages to: [hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     > Unsubscribe:
>     https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>     <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>,
>     > <mailto:[hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]>?subject=unsubscribe>
>     >
>     _______________________________________________
>     Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>     https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>     <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines>
>     New messages to: [hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     Unsubscribe:
>     https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>     <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>,
>     <mailto:[hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]>?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Music industry threats to safe harbor?

Lilburne
In reply to this post by Todd Allen
The DMCA and safe harbours is certainly why Google makes so much and
pays so little from YT. So much copyright violating material gets
uploaded there they just sit back and say "If you want it taken down you
either play whack-a-mole or you allow us to run ads next to it and pay
you a fraction of what you'd get elsewhere and if you don't like the
deal well we'll run ads against anyway, and BTW you need to license all
your stuff for use on our paid service again at a fraction of that you'd
get elsewhere." IOW Google use safe-harbour  and the DMCA as a form of
protection racket.

This isn't one user it is several 100 million of them.

Google also know that most independent creators cannot afford to
instigate a federal copyright case against some John Doe. WMF also knows
that, which is why they still hold those stolen Macaque photos and
taunted the photographer in London. The proposed copyright small claims
court may fix some of those issues. Nevertheless contrary to fantasy
most creators aren't looking to use copyright as a lottery ticket, they
simply want the violations to stop, and that when a site is informed
that X is not licensed, that X isn't republished on that same site again.

This is 2016 and digital finger printing for images, music, and film is
established technology. Major websites should no longer be able to hide
behind a DMCA whack-a-Mole. So safe-harbour in the first instance, but
once informed keep the stuff off the site, or lose the safe harbour.

On 19/12/2016 21:37, Todd Allen wrote:

> What you posted there regards contract terms between the artist and
> Youtube. That's between them to fight out. If they don't like
> Youtube's terms, they can take their stuff elsewhere.
>
> DMCA safe harbor has nothing to do with contracts. It means that, if
> you run an interactive web site (essentially, anything where users are
> allowed to post stuff), you can't be held liable if one of your users
> posts copyrighted material. The user still can be, but you, as the
> site operator, cannot.
>
> In exchange, you must provide a way that a copyright holder can
> contact you, using a standard method, and tell you that they've found
> material that infringes their copyright. You must then take that
> material down (within a certain period, I think ten days) and provide
> notice to the user that you've done so. The user can then either file
> a "counter notice" if they believe the material is not infringing,
> which you'd send back to the copyright holder if they choose to do so,
> or drop it, in which case the material stays gone. If a counter notice
> is filed, the copyright holder can at that time either take the matter
> up in court directly with the user, or drop it. If they don't file in
> court after a counter notice, you can automatically reinstate the
> material after a certain period of time. If the DMCA notice was
> malicious or fraudulent, the safe harbor provision also establishes
> liability against the person or entity who filed it. But as long as
> you file those procedures, you, as the site operator, are immune from
> liability for either the material being present to start with or for
> it being taken down.
>
> Without that protection, no one in their right mind would operate an
> interactive web site, at least not in the US. It protects everything
> from classic car hobbyist forums operated by a few people at their own
> cost, to sites like Youtube and Facebook. None of those would be
> possible without it. Or, at the very least, they would have to be
> operated from countries which are, shall we say, much more lax on
> copyright enforcement. That's bad for everyone, including the
> copyright holders--they no longer would have an effective method of
> getting infringements taken down.
>
> Since Wikimedia is DMCA-compliant, that means that, say, AP or Getty
> can't sue Wikimedia if a user uploads a bunch of their images to
> Commons. They would have to find and sue that user. And of course,
> they could file DMCA requests to have their stuff removed. But since
> WMF is much easier to find and has much deeper pockets, if they had
> the option of suing WMF, I guarantee you that they would. The only
> thing that stops them from that is safe harbor.
>
> That, and Section 230 of the CDA (which excludes liability from site
> operators for other types of illegal conduct like threats) are,
> without exaggeration, the very reason that interactive web services
> can exist at all. Without those, you'd be accepting liability for
> anything a user of your site might choose to do. You'd have to be
> insane to do that.
>
> Todd
>
> On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Lilburne
> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
> wrote:
>
>     On 19/12/2016 16:45, David Gerard wrote:
>
>         For various reasons * I follow music industry news. One drum
>         the record
>         industry has been beating *hard* in the past year is attempts
>         to reduce the
>         DMCA "safe harbor" provisions in order to squeeze more money
>         from YouTube.
>         It's been a running theme through 2016.
>
>
>     Oh dear! If this gets traction poor little Google, won't be able
>     to run their protection racket any longer. It is so worrying that
>     a little cellist might bring a $400 billion company to its knees.
>
>     https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jan/27/zoe-keating-youtube-google-music
>     <https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jan/27/zoe-keating-youtube-google-music>
>
>
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>     https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>     <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines>
>     New messages to: [hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     Unsubscribe:
>     https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>     <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>,
>     <mailto:[hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]>?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Music industry threats to safe harbor?

Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)
I think it might be useful to focus on how any of the proposed changes
to the law would affect Wikipedia/Wikimedia specifically, apart from
the broader philosophical discussion.  Is there a good link for
exactly what changes to the safe harbor laws are being considered, as
opposed to the more general statement that there's a discussion of
scaling them back?

Thanks,
Newyorkbrad/IBM

On 12/20/16, Lilburne <[hidden email]> wrote:

> The DMCA and safe harbours is certainly why Google makes so much and
> pays so little from YT. So much copyright violating material gets
> uploaded there they just sit back and say "If you want it taken down you
> either play whack-a-mole or you allow us to run ads next to it and pay
> you a fraction of what you'd get elsewhere and if you don't like the
> deal well we'll run ads against anyway, and BTW you need to license all
> your stuff for use on our paid service again at a fraction of that you'd
> get elsewhere." IOW Google use safe-harbour  and the DMCA as a form of
> protection racket.
>
> This isn't one user it is several 100 million of them.
>
> Google also know that most independent creators cannot afford to
> instigate a federal copyright case against some John Doe. WMF also knows
> that, which is why they still hold those stolen Macaque photos and
> taunted the photographer in London. The proposed copyright small claims
> court may fix some of those issues. Nevertheless contrary to fantasy
> most creators aren't looking to use copyright as a lottery ticket, they
> simply want the violations to stop, and that when a site is informed
> that X is not licensed, that X isn't republished on that same site again.
>
> This is 2016 and digital finger printing for images, music, and film is
> established technology. Major websites should no longer be able to hide
> behind a DMCA whack-a-Mole. So safe-harbour in the first instance, but
> once informed keep the stuff off the site, or lose the safe harbour.
>
> On 19/12/2016 21:37, Todd Allen wrote:
>> What you posted there regards contract terms between the artist and
>> Youtube. That's between them to fight out. If they don't like
>> Youtube's terms, they can take their stuff elsewhere.
>>
>> DMCA safe harbor has nothing to do with contracts. It means that, if
>> you run an interactive web site (essentially, anything where users are
>> allowed to post stuff), you can't be held liable if one of your users
>> posts copyrighted material. The user still can be, but you, as the
>> site operator, cannot.
>>
>> In exchange, you must provide a way that a copyright holder can
>> contact you, using a standard method, and tell you that they've found
>> material that infringes their copyright. You must then take that
>> material down (within a certain period, I think ten days) and provide
>> notice to the user that you've done so. The user can then either file
>> a "counter notice" if they believe the material is not infringing,
>> which you'd send back to the copyright holder if they choose to do so,
>> or drop it, in which case the material stays gone. If a counter notice
>> is filed, the copyright holder can at that time either take the matter
>> up in court directly with the user, or drop it. If they don't file in
>> court after a counter notice, you can automatically reinstate the
>> material after a certain period of time. If the DMCA notice was
>> malicious or fraudulent, the safe harbor provision also establishes
>> liability against the person or entity who filed it. But as long as
>> you file those procedures, you, as the site operator, are immune from
>> liability for either the material being present to start with or for
>> it being taken down.
>>
>> Without that protection, no one in their right mind would operate an
>> interactive web site, at least not in the US. It protects everything
>> from classic car hobbyist forums operated by a few people at their own
>> cost, to sites like Youtube and Facebook. None of those would be
>> possible without it. Or, at the very least, they would have to be
>> operated from countries which are, shall we say, much more lax on
>> copyright enforcement. That's bad for everyone, including the
>> copyright holders--they no longer would have an effective method of
>> getting infringements taken down.
>>
>> Since Wikimedia is DMCA-compliant, that means that, say, AP or Getty
>> can't sue Wikimedia if a user uploads a bunch of their images to
>> Commons. They would have to find and sue that user. And of course,
>> they could file DMCA requests to have their stuff removed. But since
>> WMF is much easier to find and has much deeper pockets, if they had
>> the option of suing WMF, I guarantee you that they would. The only
>> thing that stops them from that is safe harbor.
>>
>> That, and Section 230 of the CDA (which excludes liability from site
>> operators for other types of illegal conduct like threats) are,
>> without exaggeration, the very reason that interactive web services
>> can exist at all. Without those, you'd be accepting liability for
>> anything a user of your site might choose to do. You'd have to be
>> insane to do that.
>>
>> Todd
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Lilburne
>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>     On 19/12/2016 16:45, David Gerard wrote:
>>
>>         For various reasons * I follow music industry news. One drum
>>         the record
>>         industry has been beating *hard* in the past year is attempts
>>         to reduce the
>>         DMCA "safe harbor" provisions in order to squeeze more money
>>         from YouTube.
>>         It's been a running theme through 2016.
>>
>>
>>     Oh dear! If this gets traction poor little Google, won't be able
>>     to run their protection racket any longer. It is so worrying that
>>     a little cellist might bring a $400 billion company to its knees.
>>
>>
>> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jan/27/zoe-keating-youtube-google-music
>>
>> <https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jan/27/zoe-keating-youtube-google-music>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>     https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>     <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines>
>>     New messages to: [hidden email]
>>     <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>     Unsubscribe:
>>     https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>>     <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>,
>>     <mailto:[hidden email]
>>     <mailto:[hidden email]>?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Music industry threats to safe harbor?

David Gerard-2
On 21 December 2016 at 02:53, Newyorkbrad <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I think it might be useful to focus on how any of the proposed changes
> to the law would affect Wikipedia/Wikimedia specifically, apart from
> the broader philosophical discussion.  Is there a good link for
> exactly what changes to the safe harbor laws are being considered, as
> opposed to the more general statement that there's a discussion of
> scaling them back?


The Guardian article I linked outlines the problem as the record
industry sees it.

The actual problem is that the record industry makes much less money
from streaming than it did in the 1990s from CDs, and they consider
this everyone else's fault and responsibility to fix, as if boom-times
income is right and natural.

I've yet to see a coherent clearly-stated proposal on the safe harbor.
But per the Guardian article: they fundamentally dislike the fact that
YouTube doesn't have to license content first, and that people can
just upload it and *then* they need to send a notice. They would
really really like a permissioned Internet.

They previously considered Spotify streaming inherently evil as well,
until they bullied Spotify into revenue guarantees to the major labels
(but not the minor ones). YouTube has consistently refused any similar
revenue guarantee arrangement - although it's gone well out of its way
to work with them, e.g. content ID on audio.


- d.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Music industry threats to safe harbor?

Lilburne
In reply to this post by Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)
On 21/12/2016 02:53, Newyorkbrad wrote:
> I think it might be useful to focus on how any of the proposed changes
> to the law would affect Wikipedia/Wikimedia specifically, apart from
> the broader philosophical discussion.  Is there a good link for
> exactly what changes to the safe harbor laws are being considered, as
> opposed to the more general statement that there's a discussion of
> scaling them back?
>

It wouldn't have any effect. Apparently the WMF get a little over 40
DMCA requests a year in 2015 a massive 12 tick all the boxes. In 2016+
its not an onerous task to make sure that those 12 items stay off the
site. One could even get the bosom pals at Google to finger print the
uploads. Though they are probably more than pleased to have the WMF play
the existential card for them.




_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Music industry threats to safe harbor?

David Gerard-2
In reply to this post by Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)
On 21 December 2016 at 02:53, Newyorkbrad <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I think it might be useful to focus on how any of the proposed changes
> to the law would affect Wikipedia/Wikimedia specifically, apart from
> the broader philosophical discussion.  Is there a good link for
> exactly what changes to the safe harbor laws are being considered, as
> opposed to the more general statement that there's a discussion of
> scaling them back?



To further answer your question, this morning I saw these (access
while you can):

http://www.completemusicupdate.com/trendpdfs/gh890/cmutrends-1116-streamingmarket.pdf

"The real problem with YouTube, from a music industry perspective, is
that it won't pay the aforementioned minimum guarantees. Therefore
from a revenue perspective, the continued boom in people streaming
music on YouTube is irrelevant, what matters is the site’s ad sales,
which have been pretty flat of late. If the music industry gets
copyright law re-written, YouTube could possibly be forced into paying
minimum guarantees, which would force it to sell more ads, or limit
the amount of music users both upload and play."

- that is, they literally want guaranteed free money.

http://www.completemusicupdate.com/trendpdfs/kjh5r/cmutrends-0916-copyrightdirective.pdf

"The music industry doesn’t have a problem with the basic principle of
the safe harbour, just with the kinds of companies which now claim
protection. In particular, it argues that user-upload websites should
not be covered by the safe harbour. And while there are lots of sites
of that kind, the real concern is YouTube."

- and one of those sites is Wikimedia; their aim directly targets us.

http://www.completemusicupdate.com/trendpdfs/hbnms/cmutrends-0616-youtube.pdf

"This would be frustrating in itself but there’s a bigger problem, the
music rights sector argues. The existence of YouTube is stopping
people from signing up to the subscription music services."

Though even they note: "Yes, there may be support, but what does
reform actually look like? What words can legislators use to force
YouTube’s hand, without causing collateral damage? Which is to say,
could you achieve the music industry’s objectives without making every
social network liable for every ‘borrowed’ photo that is shared on the
net?"

The problem comes down to the music industry trying for free money:
"Though in Content-ID, YouTube already operates an industry-leading
takedown system. And it already pays the majority of its ad income to
the rights owners. The problem isn’t so much how the value is shared,
as it is the lack of value to start with."

So basically, Wikimedia needs to make sure it's representing itself to
the EU as well. In whatever form.


- d.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Music industry threats to safe harbor?

Gnangarra
Interestingly Australia is looking at going towards developing a safe
harbour process within its copyright laws, expand the access of fair use,
make orphan works more accessible along with making it possible for
collection agencies(GLAMs) to use copyrighted works

http://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/intellectual-property/report/intellectual-property-overview.pdf

yes there is opposing positions on this
http://copyright.com.au/about-copyright/fair-use/

On 22 December 2016 at 21:41, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 21 December 2016 at 02:53, Newyorkbrad <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > I think it might be useful to focus on how any of the proposed changes
> > to the law would affect Wikipedia/Wikimedia specifically, apart from
> > the broader philosophical discussion.  Is there a good link for
> > exactly what changes to the safe harbor laws are being considered, as
> > opposed to the more general statement that there's a discussion of
> > scaling them back?
>
>
>
> To further answer your question, this morning I saw these (access
> while you can):
>
> http://www.completemusicupdate.com/trendpdfs/gh890/cmutrends-
> 1116-streamingmarket.pdf
>
> "The real problem with YouTube, from a music industry perspective, is
> that it won't pay the aforementioned minimum guarantees. Therefore
> from a revenue perspective, the continued boom in people streaming
> music on YouTube is irrelevant, what matters is the site’s ad sales,
> which have been pretty flat of late. If the music industry gets
> copyright law re-written, YouTube could possibly be forced into paying
> minimum guarantees, which would force it to sell more ads, or limit
> the amount of music users both upload and play."
>
> - that is, they literally want guaranteed free money.
>
> http://www.completemusicupdate.com/trendpdfs/kjh5r/cmutrends-
> 0916-copyrightdirective.pdf
>
> "The music industry doesn’t have a problem with the basic principle of
> the safe harbour, just with the kinds of companies which now claim
> protection. In particular, it argues that user-upload websites should
> not be covered by the safe harbour. And while there are lots of sites
> of that kind, the real concern is YouTube."
>
> - and one of those sites is Wikimedia; their aim directly targets us.
>
> http://www.completemusicupdate.com/trendpdfs/hbnms/cmutrends-
> 0616-youtube.pdf
>
> "This would be frustrating in itself but there’s a bigger problem, the
> music rights sector argues. The existence of YouTube is stopping
> people from signing up to the subscription music services."
>
> Though even they note: "Yes, there may be support, but what does
> reform actually look like? What words can legislators use to force
> YouTube’s hand, without causing collateral damage? Which is to say,
> could you achieve the music industry’s objectives without making every
> social network liable for every ‘borrowed’ photo that is shared on the
> net?"
>
> The problem comes down to the music industry trying for free money:
> "Though in Content-ID, YouTube already operates an industry-leading
> takedown system. And it already pays the majority of its ad income to
> the rights owners. The problem isn’t so much how the value is shared,
> as it is the lack of value to start with."
>
> So basically, Wikimedia needs to make sure it's representing itself to
> the EU as well. In whatever form.
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>



--
GN.
President Wikimedia Australia
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>