Why we need to protect copyright?
Seidi Consultants Ltd. pointed out: “At present, the key problem which troubled the provider of digital television programming is the issue of copyright protection. Because the changes in the media market are too fast and need to quickly update, but the cost of copyright of world-class film and television is too high, which increased the investment risk of content providers. But if the copyright protection is done well, the content of programs can published through high-definition television, high-definition discs and many other distribution channels, thereby reducing the price of copyright. In contrast, if the copyright protection is not good, it will be dampened the enthusiasm of program providers. The digital television program must be the lack of content if the providers do not go creative.”
As we known, YouTube is currently the world’s biggest video sharing website, users can apply for an account for free, then will have no copyright issues and uploaded the file size at 100MB, 10 minutes of video file to YouTube, and can be placed in their own blogs, forums or sharing with friends.
In 2008, Viacom sued video-sharing website YouTube of copyright infringement, and claimed one billion U.S. dollars. Legal experts said that this is a typical example of the battle between Hollywood and Silicon Valley, it may be effected the digital future of the world.
The key is that whether the Copyright Law which was amended by the United States in 1998 can be applied to protect YouTube’s digital world. When DMCA has completed the legislation, there is only 19 million people in the internet world, today is as high as 1.1 billion people and YouTube users are more than 100 million people. At that time, the moderators do not have any cause of vitality, DMCA provisions did not explicitly deal with the situation similar to YouTube. The safe harbor provisions of the controversy may have a lot of key factors, such as whether YouTube is directly aware of unauthorized copyright material attached to the web on their own, whether directly get the profits from these actions.
Big Champagne’s Fleischer considered that, despite the Internet video website YouTube has learned from Napster and other more controversial digital media start-up companies’ painful experiences, but it is still shrouded in the shadow of law. YouTube is developed a content filtering technology now, in order to avoid unauthorized pirated content, at the same time once the website has found that illegal copies of the content, then immediately remove it.
Because of the diversification of piracy forms and anti-detection methods, I think YouTube’s efforts may have no effects. The most practical problem is how to compensate the copyright holder by the presentation of video piracy, content and ownership. When YouTube is a no profitable small company, no one will go to prosecute it. But now, YouTube has been acquired by the network giant Google, the situation is changed, those long-awaited copyright owner may take legal action at any time.
http://tw.myblog.yahoo.com/warrenlois/article?mid=578&prev=580&next=577
This is from Cnet news:
“The United Kingdom is preparing its own version of a digital anti-piracy law, following the publication of proposals designed to implement the European Union Copyright Directive. In the United States, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) has received widespread criticism for restrictions that, among other things, have been used to stop researchers from lecturing on anti-copying technologies and from publishing information on holes in those technologies. Significant parts of the law include new legal protection for digital watermarks, copy protection systems and other measures used to protect copyright material online. There are also new proposals aimed at combating Internet piracy. But the most contentious part of the new rules is that which mirrors the DMCA’s outlawing of devices intended to circumvent anti-copying technologies.”
http://news.cnet.com/U.K.-enters-digital-copyright-debate/2100-1028_3-949367.html
