Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by antimatter15 5315 days ago
Courts ruling on fair use are supposed to take into account "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole". Automated copyright detection schemes in YouTube may try to do some semblance of fair use by allowing snippets of copyrighted content under 30 seconds.
2 comments
VladRussian 5315 days ago
just a sidenote - if bittorrent software ensure that no peer-to-peer interaction exceeds 30 sec. for any given title, would MPAA/RIAA/etc... still be able to claim "illegal dowload"?
link
Natsu 5315 days ago
When they take into account fair use, they take the entire case into account, rather than following any hard and fast rules saying that using X% is "fair."

In other words, no, there's pretty much no way they'd buy any attempt to game the system so transparently. That's why you need a lawyer.

link
aidenn0 5314 days ago
No, the courts take context into account. So for example, it might be perfectly legal to post 2 sentences from a book on your blog, if 10,000 blog posters conspired to post a different 2 sentences to share the whole book, that would be clearly illegal. Furthermore, the law is interpreted by Judges, who are people, not machines, and they tend to take a very harsh stance against people who try to game the system.
link
pbhjpbhj 5314 days ago
YouTube are just doing a first pass filter. They're not saying that 30s of a work is legally allowed.
link
cleverjake 5315 days ago
Honest question - does the copyright still cover a live work when the original recording was permitted in the first place?
link
brettwelch 5315 days ago
Yes it does. Just because the recording was permitted doesn't mean that the recorder has the rights to publish or replay the recording.

Another example: owning a DVD does not mean you can then stream the DVD over Justin.tv.

The thing about rights is that infringement must be claimed by the rightsholder for any action to be taken. Once a rightsholder claims infringement then the content/stream/video must be shut down or removed, and if the site or person continues to infringe, THEN action can be taken.

This is one of the good things about the DMCA and the reason YouTube, Soundcloud and even justin.tv can continue to operate. It is also exactly what the much maligned SOPA bill is trying to change - for the worse.

btw, you should sign a petition against that bill on votizen or similar.

They climbin in yo' windows, snatching your youtubes up.

link