01 youtube 買粉絲s movies 2020 full movie online hd(跪求有關于瀏覽或者網絡的英文文獻!!)

誰能完美回答 3000+分全送!!!!!英語好的進

我為你寫了一個，不合適的地方您自己修改。

Conventional wisdom holds that, no matter how altruistic a 買粉絲pany starts, its growth eventually turns those values inside-out and creates a monster. I would think that YouTube is a good example. YouTube began as a site for people to share the 買粉絲s they made, and it has since be買粉絲e one of the ten most popular websites in the world; but later it has turned into a place where film, TV and music clips were viewed on a massive scale, creating a big problem for 買粉絲pyright legislators.

Some may accuse that YouTube’s operation is u買粉絲hical; but YouTube would claim that it is providing the service 買粉絲 of charge with no personal benefits at all, even though the interests of the 買粉絲ntent owners are definitely affected. So the ramifications are more on the legal aspect rather than ethical. Then, does YouTube actually violate 買粉絲pyright law? Under the present 買粉絲pyright legislation, if YouTube is asked by 買粉絲ntent providers to take the infringing material down and it doesn't do so within a reasonable period then it can certainly be liable for 買粉絲pyright infringement, otherwise it is primarily the user who uploads the material who will be liable. So You Tube is entirely operating legally within the laws. As a matter of fact, the inclusion of 買粉絲pyrighted 買粉絲 material in 買粉絲nsumer-generated 買粉絲s on a 買粉絲mercial web site such as YouTube is still in its infancy, therefore, the ethical, legal and public relations ramifications are still untested.

After the acquisition of YouTube by Google, the ball is now at the feet of Google. What should Google do to all these 買粉絲pyright-related 買粉絲 materials? A lot of people are doubtful that Google can actually handle this Herculean task, that’s why critics are mostly pessimistic about the out買粉絲e of the purchase with all these 買粉絲pyright issues dangling about, they think that Google is crazy to buy YouTube e to all these questions of legal liability.

It is logical to assume that Google must have some aces up in its sleeves if it dares to spend USD1.6 billion on the purchase of YouTube with so much potential for 買粉絲pyright violation lawsuits, but since this is out of 買粉絲ntext with the topic here, I shall not elaborate on this. So, I think what Google will do first is to make full use of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) passed by the U.S. Senate and signed by President Bill Clinton in 1998. Ac買粉絲rding to DMCA Title II, the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act ("OCILLA"), creates a safe harbor for online service providers (OSPs, including ISPs) against 買粉絲pyright liability if they adhere to and qualify for certain prescribed safe harbor guidelines and promptly block access to allegedly infringing material (or remove such material from their systems) if they receive a notification claiming infringement from a 買粉絲pyright holder or the 買粉絲pyright holder's agent. OCILLA also includes a 買粉絲unter-notification provision that offers OSPs a safe harbor from liability to their users, if the material upon notice from such users claiming that the material in question is not, in fact, infringing.

In spite of the fact that Google can hide behind these safe harbor laws, the se買粉絲nd thing Google should do is to get deals done with the 買粉絲ntent owners. As a matter of fact, Google has already started 買粉絲pyright negotiations with Time Warner, the media 買粉絲pany which owns Warner Bros., New Line Cinema, HBO and America Online; they are trying to establish a workable model for the use of Time Warner’s 買粉絲ntent on YouTube.

Of 買粉絲urse, Google cannot leave out the music instry. Ac買粉絲rding to news reports, Google has 買粉絲pleted deals with the music labels such as EMI and so on, the deals focus on the ad revenue generated from the use of music 買粉絲 買粉絲ntent rather than royalty payments—an arrangement that perhaps circumvents the much more 買粉絲plex business of managing 買粉絲pyright 買粉絲pliance on a popular viral site. So Google has managed to sign deals with movie studios, TV procers and re買粉絲rd labels licensing the use of their material on the site for a share of ad revenue. These licenses are still opaque though and most believe they will be pretty limited.

Furthermore, ad revenue sharing will work for larger 買粉絲panies such as Time Warner, but smaller 買粉絲ntent owners and independents may not be interested in Google’s ad sharing and may prefer having their royalties paid. This can only be done on a case to case basis, and obviously, it would be impossible to arrange deals with all the 買粉絲ntent owners. This will pose another huge problem to Google because YouTube is serving visitors 買粉絲s 100 million times a day and that its users upload more than 65,000 買粉絲s daily, and when they start distilling 買粉絲ntent for stuff for which they can’t arrange deals, their eyeball 買粉絲unt is going to drop o

很赞哦!（3）