Viacom case is another example presenting the conflict between the appearance of a new technology and the copyrighted works that would be affected by this new technology. Basically, I support any technology that helps to improve the distribution of knowledge, unless the sole or main purpose of the technology is for infringement, such as the technology implements circumvention of technical protection measures. I will not deny that all technologies could be used evilly; however, if it has substantial non-infringing use, then the development and distribution of new technologies are worth to be protected.
The distribution and expansion of knowledge is the ultimate purpose of copyright law, and new technology such as YouTube is an effective approach to achieve this goal. Although one of its side effects is the contribution of copyright infringement, it does not make sense to suffocate a technology useful for knowledge distribution only because it can be used evilly by some people.
As an attempt to mitigate the potential loss of copyright holders, I think the law such as DMCA does a good balance. “Notice and take down” is enough for copyright holders because they cannot expect a 100% protection by the provider of new technology. Society and economic activities are dynamic, and copyright can derive its economic value only from this dynamic mechanism. The economic rights of copyright holders are not the ultimate purpose of copyright law, and sometimes the copyright holders have to endure inevitable infringement if banning new technology is not the best solution for the general welfare.
Therefore, I think Google or YouTube should be held not liable for the infringing materials on YouTube if they have abided by the “notice and take down” requirement in DMCA.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment