I think we need legislation or, at least, some sort of groundwork regulation that protects user-generated content from company-issued end-user agreements tied to private takedown workflows, such as Google's content-id system. Such agreements tend to give publishers and copyright owners far too much power. I'm even thinking of left-field cases here, such as the right to control and redistribute content in the backdrop of Craiglist vs. PadMapper -- regardless of who's right or not, these two websites are fighting over content that _wasn't actually produced by either one of them_. It's come to the point where websites and their business partners have become de facto copyright owners of anything ever produced by mankind. What I'm saying is quite hyperbolic, I know, but just imagine a glitch in Time-Warner's top-notch automated content takedown workflow that takes down from You Tube, Vimeo and DropBox, almost instantly, a homevideo of my 8-year old son's rendition of Bach's Suite for Cello, due to a striking similarity to some piece of content supposedly owned by a prominent customer of theirs. Sounds familiar?
For instance, under my hypothetical legislation, Google would only be allowed to take down NASA's video if NASA accepted such action via an email notification that warned of a copyright claim by a third party. Such legislation would limit Google's liability (even further), protecting it from legal action by Scripps Local News, but most importantly, limit its power over the user's content published in its website, thus effectively (and I hope positively) diminishing Google's role as a copyright claim desk. The burden now would be on Scripps Local News to "threaten" (warn) the end-user of impending legal actions. This system works better the less anonymous and more accountable you, or your profile, are. OTOH, it reduces Google's persuasiveness when it comes to partnering with large media producers, which, all in all, is the heart of this content removal fever. Google's stance is to beg the user to bear with these takedown "glitches" because that's how we'll get to watch the full Beatles concertography for "free".
This fantasy takedown and redistribution noob legislation of mine, which has been addressed before [1], has many limitations (ie legal inconsistencies across borders), but I feel something needs to be done to better protect UGC since its existence, despite its metamorphic nature, has remained a constant for as long as we've had the internets.
For instance, under my hypothetical legislation, Google would only be allowed to take down NASA's video if NASA accepted such action via an email notification that warned of a copyright claim by a third party. Such legislation would limit Google's liability (even further), protecting it from legal action by Scripps Local News, but most importantly, limit its power over the user's content published in its website, thus effectively (and I hope positively) diminishing Google's role as a copyright claim desk. The burden now would be on Scripps Local News to "threaten" (warn) the end-user of impending legal actions. This system works better the less anonymous and more accountable you, or your profile, are. OTOH, it reduces Google's persuasiveness when it comes to partnering with large media producers, which, all in all, is the heart of this content removal fever. Google's stance is to beg the user to bear with these takedown "glitches" because that's how we'll get to watch the full Beatles concertography for "free".
This fantasy takedown and redistribution noob legislation of mine, which has been addressed before [1], has many limitations (ie legal inconsistencies across borders), but I feel something needs to be done to better protect UGC since its existence, despite its metamorphic nature, has remained a constant for as long as we've had the internets.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User-generated_content#Legal_pr...