Forum Moderators: not2easy
Why is is that all these sites like youtube, liveleak, yahoo, etc etc can post all they want, and yet, the little guys like me can't even discuss the battle of midway without the fear of getting a court summons letter? One could argue that maybe all this falls under FAIR USE...but that's baloney! You see all the ads these sites use on their website? Adsense, tribal fusion, etc etc etc...that's big profit right there..and they are making the $$ off of copyrighted content. Look, if I could take the new KEN BURN'S "WAR" documentary that is released next week and post it on my site (like you know how youtube will do) I'd be in deep trouble.
We need a clear line on what is legal and not illegal nowadays..I'm sick and tired of having my competitors get away with everything and not respecting copyright laws while I sit here trying to clear all the channels to make sure me and my users are protected.
Anyone else kind of in the same boat?
Some copyright holders don't mind having their material on YouTube. Some have made specific agreements permitting their material to be posted. Others simply don't have the staff to track-down and request removal of every infringing item on YouTube.
Until/unless the law is changed, that is what we have to live with.
You want consistency, you need to move to a different universe...
You know...the movie sites that let "spies" post behind the scenes movie pictures of the new star wars films...I believe some were fined.
Is there anything on the web that has more info about this? would love to learn more so.
For instance, it's not illegal for me, in the country where I live in, to take a videoclip from any movie, and post it along with a review of the movie, and/or as documentation for my research on the subject and/or as part of a discussion about the movie, history, whatever. The law doesn't even define how much, just says that if it's relevant - then it's allowed. (500 pages out of a 800 page book is fine - if its relevant)
But, it is illegal to commercialize other peoples work, and earn money on their products - directly or indirectly as long as they have the rights to it. This means no advertising at all.
The laws are very intrigant, and the definitions very argueable, and I know all the shortcuts in my country. I cannot be held responsible for other countries laws on the subject.
RandomDot said Copyright is an american law....
Copyright is a right, not a law. But every country (or at least every modern one) has enacted some sort of copyright statute in order to protect that right.
The DMCA is the specific statute for America. Other countries have their own specific statutes. But copyright is not a uniquely American concept or right.
Eliz.
It's a quite confusing world, especially where I live, since the definitions of what is and what isn't protected and in what contexts has been changed around 25 times the last 2-3 years. Not even the specialists working with it everyday (the local riaa if you may say so) are sure what's what anymore.
Add to that confusion the specific terms and conditions of every isp, wehhotel, and websites in regards to the different laws of the different countries and you have a mess beyond salvation or redemption. That doesn't change the facts though.
That before doing anything with anybodys contents you'll also have to consider the implications of that the major search engines and many major websites are based in America, and so they are legally bound under the terms of the definitions of the laws which are in play there, and they will have to act accordingly to those.
It's a troublesome area though, wish it was simpler, but then again, variation is what makes progress possible. And of course, I also hate to be in the position of a choice between either a/b/c - when I really want the rest of the alphabet too.
Sincerely, and have fun,
Matt
Then contact the host (first finding their warning of copyright infringement in their Terms of Servidce page and quote it to them) and give them similar information. If that doesn't work then send a DMCA report to the host and the owner.
I don't bother warning the owner--a thief already knows he's a thief.
I found two sites copying one of my articles tonight Word for Word and reported them both to google spam and their host. I NEVER let anyone use my articles for this very reason. My article was archived in archive.org before one of the sites ever went online so hopefully that will convince Google and the host to take the site down.
I don't bother warning the owner--a thief already knows he's a thief.
But does an infringer know he is an infringer?
My article was archived in archive.org before one of the sites ever went online so hopefully that will convince Google and the host to take the site down.
Funny how you don't mind someone copying your site/articles when it conveniences you. I assume that archive.org didn't ask you for permission. Since Archive.org gave you full credit for the article would you be so forgiving of the two sites you went after if they did the same?
Demaestro said: Funny how you don't mind someone [Archive.org] copying your site/articles when it conveniences you.
Archive.org also includes all author and copyright information, does not post its ads on your content, and will respect your wishes not to copy (as stated in your "robots.txt" file), if you so state.
I'm afraid I'm not quite seeing how the conduct and purpose of Archive.org and the infringers (referred to informally as "thieves") would somehow fit into the same category...?
RandomDot said: Archive.org also stole your contents....
Eliz.
Wikipedia hosts so much data copied straight from my site it's ridiculous. How can the large sites get away with it? Money. They can afford the lawyers required to win cases. Legal battles are a matter of money and lawyer eloquence, not right and wrong.
It's much more simple than that. Sites like Wikipedia 'get away with it' because they have multiple contributors and 'central control' :) doesn't know what is going on on every page (how could they?).
So they rely on people reporting issues, which they act on - much like Youtube etc. The law in most countries says they are perfectly legal so long as they act on reports in a timely manner.
In other words, if you don't want Wikipedia using your stuff - tell them. It's really that simple.
If it wasn't for Archive.org we wouldn't have an "impartial witness" to which site had the content online first. That doesn't prove ownership of course, but it helps.
I always make a screen copy of my articles also and other safeguards.
I don't discount the usefulness of archive.org They are in fact a great website.
The point I am making is this....They make copies of websites and re-publishing them online without first asking for the permission of the copyright holder.... while you, I and most others agree that the service and the use of the content is great not all would agree.
So for those who do not see the usefulness archive.org is like any other website that has a great idea that involves the work of others as the content for their site.
If someone sets up a website and they think that it has as much useful value to webmasters as archive.org.... With good intentions and all they makes a copy of your site, or article, or image, or everything.... and then what happens? As stated by Lorel he will go after them without even asking questions.
If archive.org can be called a good enough site that we don't mind that it doesn't have to ask for permission then shouldn't you come here to debate the usefulness of the site you are going after..... before calling them a thief and contacting their webhost and asking it to be removed. Filing DMCAs and the like? Of course you won't debate the value of the site to you.. you already stated """ I NEVER let anyone use my articles for this very reason.""" and then you talk about archive.org
So again I ask you the question... does it matter if you find value in the site that infringes on your copyright?
Like you said you find value in archive.org so you don't mind them infringing on your copyright.... I might mind though and others might as well....
Clearly many don't think that YouTube has value and you don't want them infringing on your copyright.... I might like YouTube and see value in them and don't mind them infringing on my Trademark.
So who is right?
Who gets to decide what sites have to ask and what sites don't?
It is my opinion that all sites should have to ask or all sites shouldn't have to ask.... we can't go saying that one site like archive.org has more value to someone then YouTube because it is subjective and is different for everyone.
You can't have it both ways but you seem to want to... to you it seems clear cut that the intentions of archive.org benefits you and so can infringe but then you go and call people thieves and talk about how you don't warn them....
I hope you can see the contradiction of your statements... If I started a site to compete with Archive.org would you let me re-publish your website without asking?
[edited by: Demaestro at 7:21 pm (utc) on Sep. 21, 2007]
But it's really much better to think about it as a 'library of congress' (or British Library!) that takes a copy for record purposes.
They do not promote their copy of your content, neither do they profit from it in any way shape or form. And they do allow owners to not be archived.
I'd have much more sympathy if you complained about Google's archive - which has survived courtroom challenges - but even there, what harm are they doing?
It's taking 'civil rights' to extraordinary lengths to get upset about archive.org - especially as they are the best friend of anyone affected by real content thieves.
Archive.org is your friend if you really care about copyright; if it ain't perfect, heck, whose friends ARE perfect?
Maybe my long ranting has buried the point I am trying to make and the one that no-one seems to be getting...
I am not debating the usefulness of archive.org I am saying that it's usefulness is subjective.... useful to me isn't useful to you.
I sincerely think that YouTube is more useful to me then archive.org and yet people are screaming foul at YouTube and copyright infringement and are singing the praises of another site who does the same.
So again I ask.... (three times without an answer if you are counting)
Who gets to decide what sites are useful enough that they don't have to ask for permission to republish our content?
This thread is about copyright - and your question has been answered.
Archive.org provides a record - not a perfect one, but a useful one in demonstrating prior ownership of your site's content. It does no harm to you or anyone else.
Youtube's users, on the other hand, may abuse your rights by posting your stuff and therefore denying you rightful payment - though there too, once you've reported the theft, the items will be removed in a timely fashion.
Example 1, Charlie the Unicorn, my favorite online video (3'45", and thoroughly recommended) appears many times on Youtube, and has been viewed several million times. Not all by me - but I'd seen it several times before discovering that NONE of the 50+ versions on youtube had been placed there by the copyright owner.
Example 2, the pilot episode of 'Sarah Connor Chronicles' was stolen and made available for free download before ever being broadcast on TV.
If you cannot see the distinction between such examples and Archive.com, then I suggest the 'unanswered questions' are entirely your problem, not ours. Sorry. :)
So the answer to:
"Who gets to decide what is useful enough to not have to ask our permission to outright copy our sites"
answer....Quadrille gets to decide.
Maybe you should out find out who "the sick puppies" are and ask them if they think YouTube is useful.
Wouldn't it be useful for me to make an archive of all the Simpson's show?
Let's see if you can wrap your head around this Quad... I am saying it so simply.... I AM NOT DEBATING THE USEFULNESS OF ARCHIVE.ORG
You can stop citing examples of how useful it is.... my question is who gets to decide if a site is useful enough to not need to ask permission to copy and republish someones content...
The copyright law WE ALL have to adhere to states that consent must be given before republishing can be done... there is no addendum to that stating "Unless it is useful"
I want to post a musical archive.... can I? Will it be useful? If someone can get music from my archive instead of from the copyright holder thus depriving them of revenue..... then can't someone view my content from archive.org without going through me? Thus depriving me? Did Archive.org ask me if they can copy my sites? Should I have to do work to tell them to stop when the law states that the onus is on them to ask me for permission not for me to ask them to stop?
Is this getting through? Don't praise one site for doing what another does just because YOU find it more useful... it isn't up to you to say it is useful enough to not have to follow the rules.... we should all have to play by the same rules.
[edited by: Demaestro at 3:42 pm (utc) on Sep. 24, 2007]
If someone sets up a website and they think that it has as much useful value to webmasters as archive.org.... With good intentions and all they makes a copy of your site, or article, or image, or everything.... and then what happens? As stated by Lorel he will go after them without even asking questions.
Right! Anyone stupid enough to copy "STEAL" another's content to promote their own website (and break COPYRIGHT LAW) doesn't deserve to be on the internet.
Archive.org is not breaking copyright law. Have you ever seen it ranking above another website due to the content they "copied"?
Archive.org is not breaking copyright law. Have you ever seen it ranking above another website due to the content they "copied"?
Oh I must have missed the request from them asking for my permission to completely reproduce my site and re-publish it online.
I also missed where in the copyright act it states that you can copy someones entire site and re-publish it as long as it doesn't outrank the original in search engine.... I didn't know that.
Maybe I will go and copy and republish some sites and make the purpose of my site very useful (to Quadrille)...then I will make sure I don't outrank the originals...
Yes.... that will stop people from calling me a thief... filling a DMCA and contacting my host to tell them to shut me off.
"The Internet Archive is a 501(c)(3) non-profit that was founded to build an Internet library, with the purpose of offering permanent access for researchers, historians, and scholars to historical collections that exist in digital format."
This site is not profiting from archiving information at all.
In fact it is a VERY useful site to determine if a used domain has been using spammy techniques in the past and as I stated above it's also useful to determine who had the information on the internet first.
Archive.org PRESERVES HISTORY--just like it states.
If it wasn't a useful service it would have been gone long ago.
Perhaps English isn't your first language and that is why you aren't understanding what I am saying..... I AM NOT DEBATING IT'S USEFULNESS....
Please stop citing examples of how great it is... I don't care... I am saying something so simple and it is unbelievable that you continue to argue it's usefulness to me.
It isn't about how useful the site is.... It is about being equal... if site X can copy and reproduce websites for a good reason then site Y should be able to as well.
If "usefulness" is a criteria for not having to ask permission to copy a site then who gets to decide what is useful or not.... I have a ton of ideas that I think are all as useful as archive.org. Does that give me the right to go ahead and copy others works without having to ask?
Lorel you stated that a thief knows he is a thief and that you will go after anyone that copies your site...
I sincerely want to know........if I copied your site would you stop to determine if my site was useful and didn't outrank you before you came after me? Honestly ask yourself this.... now ask why you didn't do this for archive.org
I want to be treated like every other webmaster out there. I want to have to play by the same rules... so I am trying to figure why some aren't held to the same standards... If you just blindly go after ANYONE who copies your site then why haven't you gone after archive.org?
I don't like that you call people a thief but you seem to think that archive.org isn't based on criteria that isn't written into copyright law... IE the usefulness of the reason for copying and the ranking of the re-published works.
This site is not profiting from archiving information at all.In fact it is a VERY useful site to determine if a used domain has been using spammy techniques in the past and as I stated above it's also useful to determine who had the information on the internet first.
Archive.org PRESERVES HISTORY--just like it states.
Which is completely irrelevant in terms of copyright law. To be compliant with copyright they need to aquire a licence to each and every bit of content they use that they can't justify under an excemption such as fair use.
No ifs, buts or maybes. The law is completely clear on this issue.
If copyright law was enforced as strictly as people here seem to want, there would be no archive.org. Since we all seem to agree that archive.org is a good thing, it follows that we agree that strict enforcement of current copyright laws would deprive the internet of a valuable resource.
If copyright law was enforced as strictly as people here seem to want, there would be no archive.org.
answer....Quadrille gets to decide.
For the record, I don't decide anything; merely giving my point of view, which is what the OP came here for. For that matter, Demaestro doesn't decide anything either.
This is crazy; most of us are arguing about practicalities, Demaestro is, to the point of rudeness, simply arguing a point of principle. And that's Demaestro's right, too, though it rather sidelines the thread.
Personally (if I'm still allowed to express a view), where archive.org is concerned, I'm not really interested in such a discussion - but I'd love to know why Demaestro is ;)
If copyright law was enforced as strictly as people here want, there would be no need for archive.org.
Only if you are saying that the only useful function archive.org serves is to help you enforce your copyright.
Even then, no matter how strict the laws are, it would still be a useful an cheap way of demonstrating your ownership, which is still going to be necessary in any dispute (unless you're advocating a return to mandatory copyright registration). Or rather it would have been if it existed, which it wouldn't.
- What archive.org is doing probably is illegal.
- But who browses the Internet on archive.org?
- What users are they taking away from me?
- They will remove my content upon request.
My conclusion: big deal. Yea, the long arm of the law should deal with archive.org - some time after they deal with the nasty barking black and white Scotties down the street - which will be never.
We probably need to carve out an exception in the law for them, as they serve a useful purpose. Hopefully that happens before some spoil-sport files a lawsuit and ruins it for the rest of us who appreciate the service they provide.
Personally (if I'm still allowed to express a view), where archive.org is concerned, I'm not really interested in such a discussion - but I'd love to know why Demaestro is ;)
Sorry I honestly didn't mean to come off as rude... I sincerely am sorry that I did. I get a little excited when trying to make a point at times.
The reason I am so interested is that I think we should all be bound by the same rules. I got upset when I read Lorel calling people thieves... then say he goes after them all equally... then praises archive.org and I was merely pointing out the contradiction in that statement.
I want to be able to "re-purpose" popular culture and republish it... I am for opening copyrights not making them tighter... I find it highly interesting that someone would talk so angered and vigilant about people copying sites and then would then praise a site for doing it merely because it is "useful".
I want to be designated useful enough to not have to ask for permission as well... that is where my interest lies.
I am not looking to shut down archive.org... I am looking to be given the same special designation of "useful" that they enjoy.
All I want is equality...
