View Single Post
Old January 18, 2012, 01:52 PM   #5
Jim March
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 14, 1999
Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA
Posts: 7,328
Well this is a very serious issue, because in effect what these bills are trying to do is legalize what Righthaven already tried to do to us already.

What these guys want is the ability to order entire websites taken offline if there are any "copyright infringements" there - doesn't matter who put them there or whether or not the website in question even knows about them.

The Brady campaign could take some photos, put them on their site, one of them registers here and hot-links them, and the next day they could take down TFL. It's that serious.

A lot of websites have shut down today in protest, such as http://redit.com and http://en.wikipedia.com - and while Google is still up they've self-censored their own name: http://google.com

None of these sites (esp. youtube!) could survive long under most variants of these proposals.

I personally think something else is going on specific to youtube and the other major video/audio sharing sites:

http://zerogov.com/?p=2550 - err...except they've gone dark for the day too! Sigh. Well the gist is, youtube is esp. dangerous to the big movie studios, particularly in combination with iTunes and the like. New artists can post to youtube, develop an audience connection completely separate from "big media" and market to their audience without any of the classic parasites being involved along the way. It's happening first with smaller bands but it's also happening with movies. Freddie Wong for example is making good coin doing 2min-or-so "action shorts", paying a full-time living to multiple people just off of adsense AND financing a full-length feature movie(!) - all completely disconnected from any movie studio which normally "enslaves" new talent same as the pop music biz has new musicians for generations now.
__________________
Jim March
Jim March is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.05607 seconds with 7 queries