<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Fair Use Youtube?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://ipinthedigitalage.com/fair-use-youtube/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://ipinthedigitalage.com/fair-use-youtube/</link>
	<description>CPSC 182 at Yale College</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 27 Nov 2010 19:09:24 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Elizabeth Stark</title>
		<link>http://ipinthedigitalage.com/fair-use-youtube/comment-page-1/#comment-208</link>
		<dc:creator>Elizabeth Stark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Feb 2009 19:43:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipinthedigitalage.com/?p=10#comment-208</guid>
		<description>I&#039;ve been engaging in discussions lately about the censorship aspect of the DMCA notice-and-takedown procedures, especially in the age of extremely current, viral videos. Sending a false or misguided takedown notice would result in a video being taken down for 10-14 business days, enough for it to lose relevancy in many cases. We can talk more about this on Gatekeeping week, but one idea would be to modify the law to allow for users to preemptively file an affadavit that a particular use was fair prior to any takedowns. This would serve as an automatic and immediate counternotification were the work to be served with a takedown notice, and would allow the work to stay up. 

As for Kevin Lee&#039;s case, perhaps I&#039;m missing something, but can&#039;t he still file a counternotice for the third video, despite having his account disabled? Has he tried to do so, or will YouTube not accept it?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve been engaging in discussions lately about the censorship aspect of the DMCA notice-and-takedown procedures, especially in the age of extremely current, viral videos. Sending a false or misguided takedown notice would result in a video being taken down for 10-14 business days, enough for it to lose relevancy in many cases. We can talk more about this on Gatekeeping week, but one idea would be to modify the law to allow for users to preemptively file an affadavit that a particular use was fair prior to any takedowns. This would serve as an automatic and immediate counternotification were the work to be served with a takedown notice, and would allow the work to stay up. </p>
<p>As for Kevin Lee&#8217;s case, perhaps I&#8217;m missing something, but can&#8217;t he still file a counternotice for the third video, despite having his account disabled? Has he tried to do so, or will YouTube not accept it?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

