Wednesday, February 4, 2009

IF Post #2

Here is a story about YouTube and copyright issues. A woman took a video of her toddler walking around their living room, then stopping to dance to a Prince song. She named her video after the song, innocently (or so she thought) posted it on YouTube, and then was notified of its removal, due to the takedown notice that YouTube had received from Universal Music Group. She filed a counternotice, and eventually sued Universal for misrepresentation, saying that her video was a protected fair use of the song, that her “First Amendment rights were being violated.” She ended up winning the suit, with the judge emphasizing the necessity for copyright owners to first make a good-faith evaluation before throwing around takedown notices.

I won’t go into too much detail here, but check out the section of the article called Safe-Harbor Battle. Safe-harbor has to do with Section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, something that is supposed to protect the online companies (basically, they won't be held responsible for what users post, as long as they follow certain rules - they'll have a safe harbor). Additionally, I looked elsewhere for some info on Section 512, and it seems pretty confusing.

It’s clear that technology has changed dramatically since Congress enacted this. There are just so many postings going up every hour - is it really possible to patrol every single one? And automated systems, just like internet filters, are not always reliable. I’m not exactly sure what the solution is, but something has to change…the laws/acts, the industry’s rules, etc. It's obvious that the entertainment industry, legislation, and technology are not on the same page. The end of the article mentions a compromise, not just amongst the above groups, but also with the users. Considering the popularity of user-generated content sites like YouTube, hopefully a solution or compromise will come soon so that the users (who certainly aren’t going anywhere) can continue to enjoy them.

Check out the DMCA at www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf. Section 512 starts on page 8.

2 comments:

Gretchen said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mary Alice Ball said...

Patti, I completely missed this news. It really is astonishing when you think of how innocent Lenz was in posting this. We do live in frightening times!!