* That ISPs have to proactively police copyright on user-contributed material. This means that it will be impossible to run a service like
Flickr or YouTube or Blogger, since hiring enough lawyers to ensure that the mountain of material uploaded every second isn’t infringing will exceed
any hope of profitability.
Do they not even know the difference between an ISP and a web site?
Flickr, YouTube and Blogger are not ISPs... The article's comment above is therefore nonsensical...
Pretty much all court rulings have set the precedent that a community website is NOT responsible for the posts of its end users. They're responsible
for their own content.
If ISPs are to be responsible for "active" policing, then certainly ISPs will have a tough time of it. But Flickr, YouTube and such are NOT ISPs.
That said, copyright law seems to get progressively worse and worse over the years and remove more of our rights to view and use materials we've
purchased AS WE SEE FIT. Fair use has gone down the drain.
Once I've purchased a CD or a DVD, I should be able to copy it or use it however the bloody hell I want for my own personal private use. Obviously
that does not confer on me the right to make it available for others who have not paid their dues to be able to view it. But, I should bloody well be
able to copy it to my computer, or an iPod, or make a backup copy so the primary doesn't get scratched / fingerprinted, etc. That such is apparently
"not allowed" is a bit ridiculous. Ya' buy a toaster, the toaster company doesn't get to come into your home and tell you how to use your toaster.
You can disassemble it, reassemble it, turn it into modern art. But God forbid you buy a CD or DVD and use it other than the way it's intended by the
fascist MPAA / RIAA to be used. Ridiculous.