[SLED] Copyright Question

Lauren Gelman gelman at stanford.edu
Fri Oct 20 10:22:28 PDT 2006


This is a good point.  The DMCA provision you are discussing does not 
apply to people who rip DVDs or stream movies or copy books but 
*only* applies to the entity *hosting* the material. [The main part 
of the DMCA prevents circumvention of a copyright protection system, 
ie. 'ripping' DVDs]  A host (anyone from AOL, to YouTube, to a 
blogger who accepts content, to ebay, to SL Exchange, to Linden Labs) 
can be guilty of copyright infringement for helping someone infringe 
copyright by hosting their material.  The DMCA allows the host to 
escape liability if they respond to requests from copyright owners to 
take material down.  The DMCA also allows a user to *counter-notice* 
the host-- meaning they can tell the host why they believe the 
material is not infringing (e.g. they have a license, it's a fair 
use) and the host can put the material back up.  Section 512(f) of 
the DMCA prevents a copyright owner from *misrepresenting* that the 
material is infringing and prevents a host from *misrepresenting* why 
the material was removed.  It does not make a host liable if they 
pro-actively take things down.  This issue arises when we analyze 
whether someone is a host, or a service provider, which is the 
language used in the legislation.  The more a host edits the content, 
the more the host looks like the provider of the content as opposed 
to just a host of it.  So some service providers choose to not touch 
the content at all.  But there is no law that stops hosts from 
removing stuff on their services that they believe is infringing. 
DMCA just provides them with a way to be protected if they choose not 
to monitor their users.

So if someone is ripping DVDs and streaming them into SL, here's how 
the DMCA might apply-->

First, they violated the DMCA when they circumvented the copyright 
protection.  And if SL is notified that they are hosting or linking 
to infringing material, and do not respond expeditiously, SL will not 
be able to claim the DMCA safe-Harbor against a claim of copyright 
infringement.  If they do respond, but the user thinks he has the 
right to do this, he can counter-notice SL and demonstrate why.

While it may seem crazy to force copyright owners to police their 
works by finding the infringements and notifying the hosts, think 
about how much harder it would be for Comcast or AOL to go through 
every users page to check for any copyright infringements.  Who is 
better placed to carry this burden?

Remember the person who infringes is going to be sued and pay a ton 
of damages.  This part of the DMCA is only about whether the service 
provider hosting the material should also pay damages for every 
single user every time they infringe.  [Which would either make them 
stop hosting users content or the legal fees would put them out of 
business since there is no way they can keep up with all their users].


>As I understand the law, and as Heidi pointed out, the way DCMA is 
>applied, the person *hosting* copyright material is in a much safer 
>position to take it down only when the person/corporation that owns 
>the copyright complains.
>
>They are, however asinine the law may be in this regard, allowed to 
>assume the person putting it up holds suitable copyright. You, as a 
>concerned citizen, are, of course, totally within your rights to 
>contact the actual or likely copyright holder and check it's OK to 
>use.
>
>I'm not a lawyer. UK law on copyright is rather different to US law 
>as well (there was a fascinating discussion about it on the design 
>and textures forum about a year ago, which basically made the 
>artists say "God, your laws are weird" to each other, although I 
>think the balance was most of them would rather the UK laws for 
>artwork and copyright than the US ones). What I do seem to remember, 
>and is more or less in common, the law actually requires copyright 
>holders to assert their rights for non-digital copyright as well. 
>For example, if I put up a sign saying Intel Inside in the window (a 
>lie, I'm on G5 Mac) the police won't do anything, but Intel could if 
>they found out. If, after I've been royally (if metaphorically) 
>spanked in court for it, I continue, then it can become a criminal 
>matter, because the courts have been involved, and I'm in contempt. 
>That might not be entirely correct, and does seem odd, but that's 
>what my lay take on it all is. It's worth the paper I wrote it on 
>from a lawyer's POV!
>
>Your rights for educational use... now there I really don't know 
>what would apply. The UK has fair use for education exemptions for 
>video as well as printed material. I assume whatever country you are 
>in does too, and the US probably does. My guess would be that if 
>you're complying with your local law you won't get prosecuted, even 
>if it's against US law in some detail.  "Sony sues (insert your 
>country here) school over virtual copyright" doesn't look good does 
>it? That doesn't mean I'm saying you should break the law, I'm 
>saying I think, until they say otherwise, assuming your local law 
>for fair use applies is reasonable (but again that's an opinion 
>worth the paper).
>
>Personally... I'd not use for educational purposes stuff I knew to 
>be illegal or used without copyright permission. Oddly, I might use 
>it for personal use. If I get told off for it, that's a risk I may 
>be willing to take for myself, but getting my institution told 
>off... not a smart move.
>
>One thing that might help... does your institution have a video 
>streaming server, or have a link to someone that does? Using a local 
>server for a file you've taken for specifically educational purposes 
>within compliance with your local laws strikes me that, even if you 
>do make a silly mistake somewhere and slip up on the law, you're in 
>a far, far stronger position if someone does catch you. A genuine 
>mistake for an educational establishment... they'll tell you off, 
>tell you not to do it again, but that's about it unless you do do it 
>again (there is precedent on that in the UK at least, as I remember 
>from a memo about CLA).
>
>Eloise.
>
>On 20 Oct 2006, at 17:20, Gavin Dudeney wrote:
>
>>Chris,
>>
>>Thanks once again - so basically it's a 'see no evil' approach? I 
>>suppose it's naive to suggest that it shouldn't be the copyright 
>>holder's responsibility to hire 200 people to trawl the Net every 
>>day to protect their IP. It is an interesting conversation and I 
>>really am interested in using a lot of media in SL, so one that is 
>>of great interest to me.
>>
>>By the way, the same product was posted on SLBoutique earlier today...
>>
>>Gavin
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Gavin Dudeney - Project Director
>>The Consultants-E, SL
>><http://www.theconsultants-e.com/>http://www.theconsultants-e.com
>>
>>Sponsors of the 2006 UK Moodle Conference - 
>><http://www.moodlemoot.org>www.moodlemoot.org
>>
>>Owners of the Second Life sim EduNation
>>Second Life ID: Dudeney Ge
>>
>>
>>CONFIDENTIALITY AND DISCLAIMER NOTICE
>>
>>This email and any attachments are private and confidential. It is 
>>intended for the recipient only. If you are not the intended 
>>recipient, any use, disclosure, distribution, printing or copying 
>>of this email is unauthorised. You may not read, use or take any 
>>action in reliance on it. If you have received this email in error 
>>please notify the sender immediately by replying to this email and 
>>permanently delete the email from your computer. The contents of 
>>any attachments to this e-mail may contain software viruses which 
>>could damage your own computer system. While we have taken every 
>>reasonable precaution to minimise this risk, we cannot accept 
>>liability for any damage which you sustain as a result of software 
>>viruses. You should carry out your own virus checks before opening 
>>any attachments.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>From: educators-bounces at lists.secondlife.com 
>>[<mailto:educators-bounces at lists.secondlife.com>mailto:educators-bounces at lists.secondlife.com] 
>>On Behalf Of Christopher Carella
>>Sent: 20 October 2006 16:05
>>To: SL Educators
>>Subject: Re: [SLED] Copyright Question
>>
>>Personally I don't buy anything in Second Life that I think in any 
>>way violates copyright. So that's a personal choice.
>>
>>As far as SLExchange goes, of course this is a gray area, but they 
>>still can't be sure about the copyright issues in all of these 
>>cases. What if that comment is there to add to a creative 
>>advertising firms viral marketing approach? I think they are taking 
>>the same approach as LL which is to allow copyright holders request 
>>the content to be removed. The only other approach is to verify 
>>every single piece of content like There.com does, which means your 
>>harmless ampitheater would have to go through the same review 
>>process before you could use it in world.
>>
>>So I'm not defending copyright violators here, I'm defending Linden 
>>Labs and SLExchange's decisions not to remove people's content 
>>without a copyright notice.
>>
>>Some of you may know that I'm with the Electric Sheep Company and 
>>we own SLBoutique. We have had our lawyers carefully look at things 
>>but this conversation is interesting to me. Because with SLBoutique 
>>we really want to do the right thing. We have indeed received 
>>take-down requests from the Salvador Dali Estate and the NHL and 
>>have acting promptly in taking down the content on lists they 
>>provided.
>>
>>Chris
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>On Oct 20, 2006, at 11:54 AM, Gavin Dudeney wrote:
>>
>>>Hi All,
>>>
>>>Thanks for all the opinions, quotations, etc. So now can I expand 
>>>on question.Chris said:
>>>
>>>SL Exchanges approach is a pretty industry standards way to deal 
>>>with copyright in the age of user-created content. YouTube, 
>>>Flickr, etc... as a site, SL Exchange has no idea what kind of 
>>>copyright deals the user has made with the content owner so they 
>>>must wait for a DMCA notice.
>>>
>>>Now it so happens that the creator of the object posted to the 
>>>comments on his items yesterday that he bought DVDs (these are 
>>>Hollywood films), ripped them and then streamed them to people and 
>>>charged a fee - that he had no licending deal, no copyright over 
>>>the content. Does that affect what you say? Can I buy that 
>>>product, now that he has told me he is breaking the law - and told 
>>>me in writing?
>>>
>>>Gavin
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Gavin Dudeney - Project Director
>>>The Consultants-E, SL
>>><http://www.theconsultants-e.com/>http://www.theconsultants-e.com
>>>
>>>Sponsors of the 2006 UK Moodle Conference - 
>>><http://www.moodlemoot.org>www.moodlemoot.org
>>>
>>>Owners of the Second Life sim EduNation
>>>Second Life ID: Dudeney Ge
>>>
>>>
>>>CONFIDENTIALITY AND DISCLAIMER NOTICE
>>>
>>>This email and any attachments are private and confidential. It is 
>>>intended for the recipient only. If you are not the intended 
>>>recipient, any use, disclosure, distribution, printing or copying 
>>>of this email is unauthorised. You may not read, use or take any 
>>>action in reliance on it. If you have received this email in error 
>>>please notify the sender immediately by replying to this email and 
>>>permanently delete the email from your computer. The contents of 
>>>any attachments to this e-mail may contain software viruses which 
>>>could damage your own computer system. While we have taken every 
>>>reasonable precaution to minimise this risk, we cannot accept 
>>>liability for any damage which you sustain as a result of software 
>>>viruses. You should carry out your own virus checks before opening 
>>>any attachments.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>From: 
>>><mailto:educators-bounces at lists.secondlife.com>educators-bounces at lists.secondlife.com 
>>>[<mailto:educators-bounces at lists.secondlife.com>mailto:educators-bounces at lists.secondlife.com] 
>>>On Behalf Of Christopher Carella
>>>Sent: 20 October 2006 14:38
>>>To: SL Educators
>>>Subject: Re: [SLED] Copyright Question
>>>
>>>It is not legal to sell the movies like you are describing. For 
>>>the most part streaming into Second Life should be considered the 
>>>same as streaming on the Web. Could you rip those movies and put 
>>>them up on your website for anyone who happened to stop by? If you 
>>>put a chat box on the page would that constitute a public 
>>>performance?
>>>
>>>SL Exchanges approach is a pretty industry standards way to deal 
>>>with copyright in the age of user-created content. YouTube, 
>>>Flickr, etc... as a site, SL Exchange has no idea what kind of 
>>>copyright deals the user has made with the content owner so they 
>>>must wait for a DMCA notice.
>>>
>>>Image if the Electric Sheep Company started selling licensed MLB 
>>>goods on SLExchange. How would they know if they are really 
>>>licensed?
>>>
>>>Chris
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>On Oct 20, 2006, at 9:23 AM, rodney collins wrote:
>>>
>>>>Gavin
>>>>
>>>>The first thing you learn in law school is that your gut reaction 
>>>>to an issue is usually the most correct social response and 
>>>>therefore the law will follow that.  How fast the law will 
>>>>follow, we shall see.  I agree with your concerns.  We must treat 
>>>>SL carefully if our media, our freedom of thoughts and our own 
>>>>copyrighted material will be protected by our fellow citizens and 
>>>>the law in a like manner.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Sincerely,
>>>>Murray McArdle,
>>>>Diamond City Owner and Notorious! Design Retail, Irrlevant Isle
>>>>
>>>>aka in RL
>>>>Rodney Murray Collins, Texas Architect
>>>><http://www.collinsarchitects.com/>www.collinsarchitects.com 
>>>><http://www.collinsarchitects.com/><http://www.collinsarchitects.com>
>>>>
>>>>----- Original Message ----
>>>>From: Gavin Dudeney 
>>>><<mailto:gavin.dudeney at theconsultants-e.com>gavin.dudeney at theconsultants-e.com>
>>>>To: SL Educators 
>>>><<mailto:educators at lists.secondlife.com>educators at lists.secondlife.com>
>>>>Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 7:50:57 AM
>>>>Subject: [SLED] Copyright Question
>>>>
>>>>Hi All,
>>>>
>>>>I got into an interesting discussion with a 'merchant' on the SL 
>>>>Exchange site yesterday. He was selling a movie player which 
>>>>featured over a dozen full length movies for a very low price. I 
>>>>thought that might make a nice addition to our space, so I asked 
>>>>for more details. He told me that they were commercial DVDs 
>>>>bought by him, ripped by him and then made available on fast 
>>>>servers for streaming.
>>>>
>>>>He doesn't see anything wrong with this - and neither, according 
>>>>to an email received by someone at SL Exchange - do they. I wrote 
>>>>to find out their opinion and was told that until they have a 
>>>>DMCA filed against them then they take no action - even if it is 
>>>>pointed out to them that copyright is being broken.
>>>>
>>>>So I'm a bit fuzzy about the relationship between real life and 
>>>>second life - can anyone clarify for me - is this legal? Not that 
>>>>I want to, but presuming I did, could I rip my 400+ DVD 
>>>>collection, put them up on a nice fast server and sell access to 
>>>>them in Second Life?
>>>>
>>>>Can anyone help with the legalities here - and also explain what 
>>>>constitutes a 'public performance' - is streaming a ripped movie 
>>>>in SL a public performance, since the camera can go anywhere?
>>>>
>>>>Thanks in advance
>>>>
>>>>Gavin
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Gavin Dudeney - Project Director
>>>>The Consultants-E, SL
>>>><http://www.theconsultants-e.com/>http://www.theconsultants-e.com
>>>>
>>>>Sponsors of the 2006 UK Moodle Conference - 
>>>><http://www.moodlemoot.org>www.moodlemoot.org
>>>>
>>>>Owners of the Second Life sim EduNation
>>>>Second Life ID: Dudeney Ge
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>CONFIDENTIALITY AND DISCLAIMER NOTICE
>>>>
>>>>This email and any attachments are private and confidential. It 
>>>>is intended for the recipient only. If you are not the intended 
>>>>recipient, any use, disclosure, distribution, printing or copying 
>>>>of this email is unauthorised. You may not read, use or take any 
>>>>action in reliance on it. If you have received this email in 
>>>>error please notify the sender immediately by replying to this 
>>>>email and permanently delete the email from your computer. The 
>>>>contents of any attachments to this e-mail may contain software 
>>>>viruses which could damage your own computer system. While we 
>>>>have taken every reasonable precaution to minimise this risk, we 
>>>>cannot accept liability for any damage which you sustain as a 
>>>>result of software viruses. You should carry out your own virus 
>>>>checks before opening any attachments.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>From: 
>>>><mailto:educators-bounces at lists.secondlife.com>educators-bounces at lists.secondlife.com 
>>>>[<mailto:educators-bounces at lists.secondlife.com>mailto:educators-bounces at lists.secondlife.com] 
>>>>On Behalf Of James Lloyd
>>>>Sent: 20 October 2006 05:39
>>>>To: 'SL Educators'
>>>>Subject: RE: [SLED] NMC Impact of Digital Media Symposium 10/18
>>>>
>>>>I was also there Chris to experience the technical aspects of the 
>>>>session and I think that the streaming audio was very effective 
>>>>and I'm thankful to the presenters for working with that tool. 
>>>>Jeremy did a great job putting the pieces together and it 
>>>>provides me with more inspiration for my own project.
>>>>
>>>>Now if there was a way to have the avatar of the user speaking 
>>>>gesticulating in time with the sound.  (was that sentence as 
>>>>difficult to read as it was to compose?)
>>>>-
>>>>james
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>From: 
>>>><mailto:educators-bounces at lists.secondlife.com>educators-bounces at lists.secondlife.com 
>>>>[<mailto:educators-bounces at lists.secondlife.com>mailto:educators-bounces at lists.secondlife.com] 
>>>>On Behalf Of Chris Collins
>>>>Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 7:53 AM
>>>>To: SL Educators
>>>>Subject: [SLED] NMC Impact of Digital Media Symposium 10/18
>>>>
>>>>Hi all,
>>>>
>>>>As part of the NMC 
>>>><http://www.nmc.org/campus/Impact_of_Digital_Media_Symposium_Schedule>Impact 
>>>>of Digital Media Symposium, I attended the Second Life Educators 
>>>>(SLED) panel session on Are We Playing Games? Finding Legitimacy 
>>>>in the Academy yesterday and I have to say it was one of the most 
>>>>"educational" experience I've had on SL yet!  
>>>>
>>>>If you are interested in learning about the experiences of other 
>>>>educators using SL and understanding the benefits and snags they 
>>>>discovered, I highly recommend listening to the audio located at 
>>>><http://www.nmc.org/sl/>http://www.nmc.org/sl/ for the October 
>>>>18th date.
>>>>
>>>>Thanks to the panel and all who participated!
>>>>
>>>>Best wishes,
>>>>
>>>>Chris Collins
>>>>UCit Instructional & Research Computing
>>>>University of Cincinnati
>>>>(SL:  Fleep Tuque)
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>No virus found in this incoming message.
>>>>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>>>>Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.5/483 - Release Date: 18/10/2006
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>No virus found in this outgoing message.
>>>>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>>>>Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.7/488 - Release Date: 19/10/2006
>>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>Educators mailing list
>>>>To unsubscribe
>>>><https://lists.secondlife.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/educators>https://lists.secondlife.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/educators
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>Educators mailing list
>>>>To unsubscribe
>>>><https://lists.secondlife.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/educators>https://lists.secondlife.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/educators
>>>>
>>>
>>>Producer
>>>The Electric Sheep Company
>>>www.electricsheepcompany.com
>>>
>>>
>>>P: 703.400.6533
>>>F: 505.212.5302
>>>
>>>SL:     Satchmo Prototype
>>>There: SatchmoPrototype
>>>B: 
>>><http://blogs.electricsheepcompany.com/chris>http://blogs.electricsheepcompany.com/chris
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>No virus found in this incoming message.
>>>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>>>Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.7/488 - Release Date: 19/10/2006
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>No virus found in this outgoing message.
>>>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>>>Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.7/488 - Release Date: 19/10/2006
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>Educators mailing list
>>>To unsubscribe
>>><https://lists.secondlife.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/educators>https://lists.secondlife.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/educators
>>>
>>
>>Producer
>>The Electric Sheep Company
>>www.electricsheepcompany.com
>>
>>
>>P: 703.400.6533
>>F: 505.212.5302
>>
>>SL:     Satchmo Prototype
>>There: SatchmoPrototype
>>B: 
>><http://blogs.electricsheepcompany.com/chris>http://blogs.electricsheepcompany.com/chris
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>No virus found in this incoming message.
>>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>>Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.7/488 - Release Date: 19/10/2006
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>No virus found in this outgoing message.
>>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>>Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.7/488 - Release Date: 19/10/2006
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Educators mailing list
>>To unsubscribe
>><https://lists.secondlife.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/educators>https://lists.secondlife.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/educators
>>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Educators mailing list
>To unsubscribe
>https://lists.secondlife.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/educators


-- 
Lauren Gelman            
Center for Internet and Society
Stanford Law School
(ph) 650-724-3358
http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blogs/gelman/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.secondlife.com/pipermail/educators/attachments/20061020/d8d6ccab/attachment.htm


More information about the Educators mailing list