Comments on: Burdens and Business Models http://timothyblee.com/2009/10/14/burdens-and-business-models/ A Blog by Timothy B. Lee Mon, 06 Sep 2010 04:54:54 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc By: Timothy B Lee http://timothyblee.com/2009/10/14/burdens-and-business-models/comment-page-1/#comment-6211 Timothy B Lee Wed, 14 Oct 2009 15:44:35 +0000 http://timothyblee.com/?p=1314#comment-6211 Hey Adam, I think if a licensing agreement isn't reached, then we're stuck with the DMCA notice-and-takedown process. A lot of what gets uploaded to UGC sites are not fair use, and so copyright holder will have to issue a lot of take-downs and file some lawsuits. Which is expensive for copyright holders, giving copyright holders an incentive to be reasonable about the terms under which they'll license their content. In the long run, I suspect that in the long run, we'll end up with something like the Imeem business model: users upload whatever they want, and social networks share advertising revenue with content companies. But Imeem isn't doing so well, so I don't think anyone's figured out the perfect business model yet. I don't really see a need for Congress to get involved. Sooner or later, content creators will either come to their senses or be replaced by companies that understand the Internet. Hey Adam,

I think if a licensing agreement isn’t reached, then we’re stuck with the DMCA notice-and-takedown process. A lot of what gets uploaded to UGC sites are not fair use, and so copyright holder will have to issue a lot of take-downs and file some lawsuits. Which is expensive for copyright holders, giving copyright holders an incentive to be reasonable about the terms under which they’ll license their content. In the long run, I suspect that in the long run, we’ll end up with something like the Imeem business model: users upload whatever they want, and social networks share advertising revenue with content companies. But Imeem isn’t doing so well, so I don’t think anyone’s figured out the perfect business model yet.

I don’t really see a need for Congress to get involved. Sooner or later, content creators will either come to their senses or be replaced by companies that understand the Internet.

]]> By: Adam Thierer http://timothyblee.com/2009/10/14/burdens-and-business-models/comment-page-1/#comment-6209 Adam Thierer Wed, 14 Oct 2009 15:33:37 +0000 http://timothyblee.com/?p=1314#comment-6209 Tim, I think you're spot on in suggesting that "The most obvious approach is to sign an agreement with the UGC sites that allows their content on the site in exchange for a cut of ad revenue." Such a voluntary licensing process is a win-win for all involved. The content flows and the lawsuits stop. Of course, the really sticky question is: What happens when such a deal cannot be reached? Does the copyright holder still have rights in your opinion? Can they ask/force the site to take down the content? I know that's where fair use determinations will enter the equation, but how broadly should those be read absent a licensing agreement. Because many copyright skeptics seem to suggest that fair use can be read so broadly as the trump any rights of the copyright holder to request take-down. Not saying I have answers, just trying to better frame the questions I have been personally struggling with for many years to hear what you think. Personally, as much as I hate the sound of it, I think we're eventually going to get to mandatory compulsory license as the solution to these intractable problem of a lack of voluntary licensing agreements. I itemized my reservations with such a system here: http://techliberation.com/2008/12/01/lessigs-call-for-a-simple-blanket-license-in-remix AT Tim, I think you’re spot on in suggesting that “The most obvious approach is to sign an agreement with the UGC sites that allows their content on the site in exchange for a cut of ad revenue.” Such a voluntary licensing process is a win-win for all involved. The content flows and the lawsuits stop.

Of course, the really sticky question is: What happens when such a deal cannot be reached? Does the copyright holder still have rights in your opinion? Can they ask/force the site to take down the content? I know that’s where fair use determinations will enter the equation, but how broadly should those be read absent a licensing agreement. Because many copyright skeptics seem to suggest that fair use can be read so broadly as the trump any rights of the copyright holder to request take-down.

Not saying I have answers, just trying to better frame the questions I have been personally struggling with for many years to hear what you think.

Personally, as much as I hate the sound of it, I think we’re eventually going to get to mandatory compulsory license as the solution to these intractable problem of a lack of voluntary licensing agreements. I itemized my reservations with such a system here: http://techliberation.com/2008/12/01/lessigs-call-for-a-simple-blanket-license-in-remix

AT

]]>