'Modernise' safe harbour laws for the tech oligarch era – IP czar The Prime Minister’s outgoing IP advisor has said the shift in the balance of power to now-dominant tech multinationals means “Safe Harbour” provisions devised in the 1990s should be modernised and made fit for purpose. Safe Harbour is a blanket term for limitations of liabilities for internet operators against obscenity, …
This post has been deleted by its author
You want Joe Random to have to pay for something like that to have his own website with user content? The reason why the burden is on the owner is because there's more of them, and some of them either don't mind or encourage such behavior(s3rl with songs like "nightcore this" being an example). That and it removes the requirement that you have margins big enough or pockets deep enough to pay for filtering. Safe harbour is broken, just in favor of the big copyright companies, because they have no burden of proof, it's guilty until you prove yourself innocent.
Safe harbour isn't broken. It's doing its job fine - protecting those who run infrastructure. It's just like we wouldn't prosecute the Royal Mail or a printing company for the distribution of libel - the blame lies with the author.
The idea that big copyright holders have that they must attack the infrastructure is both disgusting and disturbing. The infrastructure is simply targeted because it's easier. But we should be very wary of this - if we want a diverse media, we need infrastructure that has safe harbours.
Paul Resnikoff says "And usage patterns show that everyone goes to those videos if the official video isn’t uploaded fast and first."
Well, I have a radical solution to that. It may well tax the tinier of brains, so brace yourselves:
As the person who created the content, be the first to upload it.
If you haven't made it yet, engage with your fans and get them to help - both in advertising and in policing. Amazingly, they'll probably help. Fan is short for fanatic, after all. If they don't help, ask WHY - it's likely that they have a demand that you're failing to supply. Welcome to economics 101... it really isn't that difficult.
"The idea that big copyright holders have that they must attack the infrastructure is both disgusting and disturbing"
Well, two points.
1. It's little copyright holders (and that includes you) - should you ever do something as post a photo online - who get screwed today. That's if you want to own and control your own stuff, such as pictures of your family.
2. So called Safe Harbour liability limitations were never intended to shield criminal behaviour, but protect honest operators from being clobbered unfairly. They're obviously being used for a bit more than that. So something will need to change.
Whether we need a standing army of copyright cops is another matter. Not one many readers would want, or one I think is necessary.
Pretending there isn't a problem makes it more likely you'll get a standing army, though. Just saying.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
