Copyrights, linking to filesharing, etc

[Seven]

Sorry if this has been talked about before (I searched and did not find).

A long time rule on SDMB was not to talk about file sharing or P2P software because it is generally thought to violate copyrights (which is a good default position because most of the time it does).

But what about copyright violations on places like youtube? Most of the links to music on youtube are posted without the copyright owners permission. I honestly don’t think this 21 year old in Brazil has permission to post Kiss videos.

Isn’t this promoting copyright infringement?

[TubaDiva]

No, it’s people linking to YouTube.

We have no control over YouTube and what they allow or remove from their site.

And we do allow discussion on file sharing and peer to peer software in correct context. What we haven’t allowed is open talk on how to steal copyrighted material. We have tended to be somewhat hard on this in time past but as this becomes more structured and legalized we are (or should be, anyway) looser as well, though we’ll probably continue to err on the side of caution.

[Seven]

So, would it be OK to link to one of those file download sites that host bulk files like mp3s?

Let’s say in a thread about cover songs. Right now there are links to youtube so people can listen to the song mentioned in the thread. Could I link to the mp3 file hosted on a website as long as it isn’t related to a torrent or P2P method of distribution?

This is the same thing as the youtube policy. SDMB doesn’t control the content of filehost.com or similar places - even though both youtube and filehost are violating copyrights by hosting the file/song/whatever.

[Gfactor]

@Seven

So, would it be OK to link to one of those file download sites that host bulk files like mp3s?

Let’s say in a thread about cover songs. Right now there are links to youtube so people can listen to the song mentioned in the thread. Could I link to the mp3 file hosted on a website as long as it isn’t related to a torrent or P2P method of distribution?

This is the same thing as the youtube policy. SDMB doesn’t control the content of filehost.com or similar places - even though both youtube and filehost are violating copyrights by hosting the file/song/whatever.

I look at them on a case-by-case basis. I don’t think I’ve been presented with the issue as you frame it, but I think I’d be willing to allow a link to any site that has a designated agent for notification of claims of infringement under the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act. Here’s the list: U.S. Copyright Office - Service Provider Agents

I have not discussed this with the other moderators, and I don’t know that we’ve considered it at this level of detail, so please don’t take my response as definitive.

[not_alice]

@Gfactor

I look at them on a case-by-case basis. I don’t think I’ve been presented with the issue as you frame it, but I think I’d be willing to allow a link to any site that has a designated agent for notification of claims of infringement under the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act. Here’s the list: U.S. Copyright Office - Service Provider Agents

I have not discussed this with the other moderators, and I don’t know that we’ve considered it at this level of detail, so please don’t take my response as definitive.

Interesting list!

But wouldn’t that be a very US-centric point of view?

Also, since the list happens at the ISP level, then does it matter if the link is to a torrent or other p2p protocol? The same claim to the agent(s) can be made regardless of protocol, right?

[Gfactor]

@not_alice

Interesting list!

But wouldn’t that be a very US-centric point of view?

Also, since the list happens at the ISP level, then does it matter if the link is to a torrent or other p2p protocol? The same claim to the agent(s) can be made regardless of protocol, right?

Good points. You’ve given me something else to think about. Thanks, I guess.

[TubaDiva]

Creative Loafing is a U.S. company. U.S. rules apply.

[not_alice]

@TubaDiva

Creative Loafing is a U.S. company. U.S. rules apply.

I think gfactor got my point but maybe you missed it. You can only impose US notification rules on ISPs in the US. Links could be to anywhere around the world.

[Gfactor]

Right. It turns out that my first post in this thread was a bad idea. I’m thinking about it.

[not_alice]

@Gfactor

Right. It turns out that my first post in this thread was a bad idea. I’m thinking about it.

Just to give it another twist, I think you will find that DMCA notification only helps if the ISP hosts the file in question on machines they control.

And that they are not obligated to respond (although it may be in their best legal interests to do so), and that the other party has a chance to object in which case the ISP can put the file back.

See chillingeffects.org for the best lay information on it.

[Gfactor]

@not_alice

Just to give it another twist, I think you will find that DMCA notification only helps if the ISP hosts the file in question on machines they control.

And that they are not obligated to respond (although it may be in their best legal interests to do so), and that the other party has a chance to object in which case the ISP can put the file back.

See chillingeffects.org for the best lay information on it.

Yes. I simply typed before I thought. What I proposed won’t work.