Jason Dunn
03-23-2007, 10:01 PM
<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.betanews.com/article/Microsoft_Shutters_Soapbox_to_New_Users/1174661700' target='_blank'>http://www.betanews.com/article/Microsoft_Shutters_Soapbox_to_New_Users/1174661700</a><br /><br /></div><i>"Attempting to stave off a similar situation to that of YouTube, Microsoft said this week it would not accept new registrations for as long as two months while it works on a better system to protect copyright. The move is in response to an increasing number of illicit videos appearing on the service. While current users will be able to continue to access Soapbox, the site would not accept any new registrations. Microsoft on Thursday had announced a deal with NBC/Universal and Fox/NewsCorp to stream television shows and movies through Soapbox. As it continues to strengthen Soapbox's offerings, it is likely getting pressure from copyright owners not to repeat YouTube's mistakes."</i><br /><br />Soapbox was already having enough of a hard time competing with YouTube, now this cautious move will put them further behind - though I can certainly understand why. Ultimately this may be the first of many such sites to put on the brakes and try to figure out a way to stop "illegal" content from going online. I put illegal in quotes because much of what I've seen on YouTube, in the form of copyright infringing material at least, are short clips people want to share because they're funny. <br /><br />I don't support the use of YouTube for uploading entire shows broken up into three 10 minute segments - the intent there is obviously to share the entirety of the content without the permission of the copyright holder. But in the same way I think it should be legal for me to share 30 seconds of a song online, sharing 30 or 60 seconds of a TV show or DVD should be legal. Quoting someone else's writing has the protection from the law, so long as the amount quoted doesn't border on complete reproduction, so why is sharing small amounts of video illegal?