I may be american, but..
UK-based FAP League?
YouTube won a small victory this week in the website's everlasting campaign not to have its pants sued off by copyright owners. A US federal judge has dismissed some damages brought by a lengthy roster of sports and music copyright holders, led by the UK-based Football Association Premier League. US District Judge Luis Stanton …
UK-based FAP League?
if you create something in another country you have to register it with the US copyright office to be afforded any protection from youtube.com. Is this just a way of trying to pay off the US deficit?
this has implications for everybody. bloggers, youtube fiends... if you create anything you had better pony up to the US Govt or fail to be protected from US pirates.
picture is of Obama rifiling through my jacket looking for my wallet
"bars statutory damages for all foreign and domestic works not timely registered."
If there's a lawyer among us (or someone who actually knows copyright law), can you please answer whether works actually do need to be registered? The last I knew, all works automatically received copyright protection, you did not need to register them. That quote implies the opposite, or more accurately, it implies that the automatically-received copyright protection is impotent, as you will not be compensated for infringement.
1. If the poster is from outside the USA. They cannot sue
2. Google (youtube) is a search engine. If the (c) holders want the content out they need to search for it themself and sumit every single demand separated and prove that it was posted by a USA citizen.
3. Better yet, shutdown the RIAA/MPAA = problems solve. There is anti-criminal gang laws in the states, but yet, the MPAA/RIAA are still operating
4. Since the youtube video are so poor quality, a (c) tv show viewer is most certain to seek the DVD / online legal way to get it in full quality
If MP3s were involved, Google would be fined for trillions of dollars.
Then by the same logic it's fine for Britons to copy anything that only carries a US copyright. If Hollywood doesn't protect their works by applying for copyright protection in every country in the world doesn't that mean that they don't have any protection in those countries?
Unfortunately not. Because the rest of the world is continually attacked by the US for not changing their laws to protect US interests and have had trade agreements threatened unless they do so.
So while US copyright law has no respect for works created in other countries, most of us have laws that protect US rights holders.
Remind you of anything? I'm sure Gary McKinnon isn't smiling at the irony.
I wonder what would happen if a leader with actual balls was to demand that before they alter their laws to assist US corporations, the US shows equal consideration to the protected works of their country. They'd probably have another round of renaming French Fries or English Muffins. Hmm.. Freedom Muffins, it has a certain ring to it.
The Fact is YOU TUBE is in violation of Copyright Laws, as anyone can up load films or whatever they feel like on it without the permit from the owner of the copyright - films & t.v programmes are being watched which means that DVDs are not being bought!!!
International Copyright Treaties calls for nations who signed to it to treat non nationals as though they were [nationals], which is probably why the Judge ruled that a US protection was needed to have been made first.
Regarding YOU TUBE and allowing illegal uploads, there is a law out there that does outlaw this;[secondery infringement ] !!!
IANAL, but the phrase "for all foreign and domestic works not timely registered" very explicitly states that foreign and domestic material is to be treated in _exactly_ the same way.
It's also interesting to note that Google expects to profit from books that are published in Europe, because they are assumed to have some "copyright-ability" in the US, and therefore they would fall under the scanning Monopoly that Google is trying to agree in a private agreement with US publishers, under the guidance of a US judge.
The quote from the court only applies to STATUTORY damages, (which are 750 USD - 30,000 USD per work, or up to 150,000 USD per work for "willful infringement").
Non-registared works are still protected, but only receve actual damages (I would expect this to be 20-30 USD per infrindgement. It should vary with the value of the work, but based on the going rate of a new release DVD that seems reletively resonable (note the difference between units)).
IANALAEIIWALIANYL (I Am Not A Lawyer, And Even If I Were A Lawyer I Am Not Your Lawyer)
So, in summation, this story is a tad sensationalist. Then again, it's el Reg, and that's why we love you guys!
If copyright holders and their minders hate the internet so much, why don't they fuck off and stop creating works that people will just rip off - they could then go off and get real jobs. I'm pretty sure the void would be filled with people creating new works simply for the love of creating new works (be it music, film or whatever). There might be a lot of dross (see the internet), but a few nuggets will rise to the surface.
I'm pretty sure when one of my ancestors was telling a story to a bunch of people, he/she wasn't worried about someone ripping off that story, because his/her head was full of them.
And while I have nothing against Britney Spears (or whoever) per se (I'm sure she's a lovely person), I just cannot agree her song writing abilities is worth fining a single mum (how ever stupid) 1.92 million dollars. Has she still got a large house, and more money than she knows what to do with? (Britney that is).
The problem with money is that no matter how much you've got, the fear is you need more.