What bothers me about both justin.tv and scribd (as an occasional angel investor, though not in anything related to those sites) is the mass of copyrighted content. I am not sure what PG feels about sites whose business model depends on illegally posted copyrighted content - I am asking in the context of his idea number 1 (RIAA problem) ...
My personal inclination is to say "cross that bridge when you come to it." Something as innocuous as StreamFile will certainly be used to unauthorizedly distribute copyrighted content, but that is the responsibility of the uploader, not the service provider.
One of the few reasonable aspects of the DMCA is the approach to "Safe Harbor" provisions. So long as the service provider makes reasonable efforts to take down content when provided a conforming takedown notice, it is in the clear. The individual uploader is held responsible for any infringing activity. The one weakness of the system is the ease with which some parties send out takedown notices for content which they do not actually have authority to take down.
But knowingly looking the other way makes me uncomfortable - "knowingly looking the other way" is what is really involved here. Legal issues aside, there is an ethical question involved (regardless of your opinion of RIAA). Civil disobedience is one thing, but profit motive and civil disobedience don't mix.
That's one reason I have stayed away from companies with business models like this.
I think the difference here is that civil disobedience involves breaking the law in order to uphold some moral standard. Under the current copyright law's safe harbor provisions, no law is being broken by a service provider who is willfully, evenly blind and non-encouraging to the infringements by individual users so long as the provider complies with takedown notices. Knowingly waiting for and responding to the notices is what is required by the law. I choose not to see it as "looking the other way" any more than google or youtube is looking the other way.
The current copyright regime is unsustainable in this digital age. RIAA/MPAA tactics are unconscionable. There must be a better system. I think there are both ethical and business advantages to being part of the solution rather than just shying away from the problem. I think that avoiding developing a promising technology like justin.tv just because users can potentially use it to infringe copyright is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
12 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 51.0 ms ] threadPerhaps the ease of lifestreaming in comparison to making a video? Or perhaps a societal shift toward narcissism?
Google Calendar still doesn't have a fully featured quick add, and you still can't preview events with mouseover.
One of the few reasonable aspects of the DMCA is the approach to "Safe Harbor" provisions. So long as the service provider makes reasonable efforts to take down content when provided a conforming takedown notice, it is in the clear. The individual uploader is held responsible for any infringing activity. The one weakness of the system is the ease with which some parties send out takedown notices for content which they do not actually have authority to take down.
That's one reason I have stayed away from companies with business models like this.
The current copyright regime is unsustainable in this digital age. RIAA/MPAA tactics are unconscionable. There must be a better system. I think there are both ethical and business advantages to being part of the solution rather than just shying away from the problem. I think that avoiding developing a promising technology like justin.tv just because users can potentially use it to infringe copyright is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.