http://disqus.com/people/9fc2968ab29a13e6d5076cca581c6e7b/enThu, 06 Aug 2009 12:13:17 -0000http://tlf.disqus.com/this_account_is_suspended/#comment-1454589Nope- you're wrong.<br><br>It is as if you are commenting without even having read the DMCA itself. <br><br>While I could go on for pages about what is wrong with your post, I'll confine my comments to this: the DMCA does NOT give websites hosting user-generated content a safe-harbor. <br><br>The safe-harbor provision is for service providers- in other words, the network operators or owners of the "pipes." As I wrote in a post last March, <a href="http://blog.actonline.org/2007/04/lessig_on_viaco.html" rel="nofollow">http://blog.actonline.org/2007/04/lessig_on_via...</a>, this provision was the result of a long and difficult negotiation. As one of the House Judiciary counsels involved in the negotiations, I can assure you that websites such as YouTube were NOT intended to be included in the safeharbor.<br><br>And, even if somehow the judge in the Viacom case does find that the safeharbor can apply to YouTube, it isn't as simple as just "honor(ing) requests to take-down material" to escape liability. There's the whole "can't have knowledge of the infringing activity" and "can't derive a financial benefit from the infringing activity" stuff that could really get in the way of escaping liability.Debbie RoseMon, 02 Jun 2008 14:36:05 -0000http://tlf.disqus.com/unconstitutional_copyrights/#comment-14350102I posted a blog on this at <a href="http://blog.actonline.org/" rel="nofollow">http://blog.actonline.org/</a>.Debbie RoseThu, 06 Aug 2009 12:13:17 -0000