And even newspapers use the latter approach for some things. I doubt the New York Times wants to be held responsible if someone posts a link to pirated content in an article comment, for instance.
YouTube tries to automate curation with the use of algorithms that cater content to who they think their visitor is.
It's not the kind of curation we're talking about, no. We're talking about whether it's allowed (or at least publicly visible) on their website at all, not what is shown on the front page to each user.
[0]: https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2016/05/19/1-percent-youtub...
Should we allow companies to skip out on laws just because they scaled their business up?
This board is usually in agreement that patents that are effectively of the pattern of "were doing something that's been done before, but it's on the internet so it's different now" are complete bullshit.
Why are we giving a pass to internet based companies when it comes to copyright, just because they are making a lot of money?
If Youtube profits directly from whatever they are hosting it is not that farfetched to say that they might also be liable for what is shown
If it's Youtube's suggestions that are the problem, I suppose Youtube could be more careful in what content they suggest for you without banning other content to exist. It's just going to be harder to stumble upon when it's not what you're looking for.
That doesn't have any effect on which videos they're hosting. All the ones that aren't featured are still there. It's not as if Hollywood would be satisfied for YouTube to be hosting infringing content just because it wasn't featured.
I am a fan of the DMCA approach for this problem, but saying that Youtube's business model doesn't work with this rule is... kinda the point? It defnitely would be the point for sites like Megaupload
That distinction is no solace if your copyright is being violated or you are being defamed in an unaddressable way.
Then send an individual takedown notice, or file a defamation lawsuit. Why should you get a special process that bypasses the legal system?
Filing suit against the publisher is not bypassing the legal system, it is addressing the one that causes harm.
> People can upload illegal content faster than lawyers can issue takedown notices for them.
Why is a massive copyright-owning organization's failure to scale a problem that anyone else should help with?
I'm aware of the original lawsuits against YouTube to that effect, and the arguments are just as wrong now as they were then.
(Also, I fully believe that filing an incorrect takedown notice should have legal repercussions, which today it never seems to.)
Ok. So how is copyright policing scalable? I argue that a general copyright filter is much harder than a copyright filter targeting your specific works.
Also, the big copyright holders have automated this process, unless you think they employ thousands of people to send individual take-down notices?
Many people here seem to take the notion of a content loss in Europe as bad for granted. I see it as quite positive. If we can replace generic, low quality content with more space for people who do not just ride on copyright but provide genuinely new content, I would consider this to be very positive. Maybe this opens up a space to have more European content on Youtube instead of just having the same generic content dominate the website that is subject to these copyright battles.
The incentive for Youtube is clear, they want to make as much money and generate as much content as possible, with little attention paid to the fact whether the content is educational, regionally relevant, authentic, or original. It seems obvious to me that a Youtube that might be smaller, less profit or attention oriented, and less commercialized is not in their interest.
The one exception I would make here is scientific or academic content, which should be granted strong protections.
When you put up guardrails (so many that people can't even keep up to date with what the automated system detects), that's exactly what you get. The words and images of countless properties would have to be filtered and pulled.
Regardless of what we would hope to happen, people simply ride whatever bland waves generate the most views. This is partly why we have streams of people eating and such, although the "newsy" channels would be hamstrung by this, you can imagine even the "food" streams would be impacted if they dared to say or show the icon of the food they are eating!
This is the technological culmination of capitalistic corruption of freedom vis a vis intellectual property.
These experts of yours must be illiterate, because the law couldn't be clearer. Quote:
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers [obscene/harassing/otherwise objectionable/etc.]
> Many, who are experts on the law
Name one!
Here's a pretty good summary how the provision in question came about as a response to exactly your 30-year-old flawed reasoning. Plus the site design even fits with how 90s retro this debate is: http://www.cybertelecom.org/cda/samaritan.htm
I am not particularly big on the overreach our copyright system has. Chasing down people supporting orphaned works or trying to fix stuff for personal use, or whatever else is not cool, and our copyright system has a lot of problems, mostly because of the House of Mouse.
But things like posting current, paid content does hurt the businesses that create that content, and short-term, relevant copyright is there for a reason, and beneficial. Without some form of copyright, the movie and TV industry would not exist. And YouTube channels commonly post full episodes of Game of Thrones or Last Week Tonight the same day of, and often go unchecked for months or years before YouTube takes action.
We don’t actually know if that is true. (Or if it would be a bad thing, heh)
The value of the medium of video is such that it would have been used no matter what type of copyright exists and people would have found ways to make money in that industry.
A different form of copyright or a complete lack of copyright would certainly result is a significantly different move and TV industry that produced different types of content, but it would almost definitely still exist.
Edit: Two clear examples of types of business models that are much less reliant on copyright are BBC and PBS.
Basically today you have two models: paid content and ads. Without copyright there would be only one model.
You also have publicly funded television. There is no reason you couldn't also have crowdfunded television. Budgets would be much lower, in all likelihood, but something would be there.
It's actually hard to discuss counterfactuals like this because there is such a strong bias towards assuming that the world we got is the world we would/should have wanted. If things went differently creative outlets might have been different and our preferences would have been shaped differently.
For example, once upon a time it was fine to have people in all-black leotards walking around a stage production picking people up and carrying things around to simulate poltergeists. People were fine just ignoring them. Now people expect wirework in stage production to maintain the same level of suspension of disbelief. It's just about what you're used to.
Sort of. The accounting is complicated but public funding is something like 20% of PBS and local station revenue as I understand it. Most of it is membership, foundations, etc. So most of public TV already is crowdfunded.
So what's wrong with creating a new space for savvy internet users who appreciate the freedom of a decentralized web?
And professional systems are simple things too like web hosting, on top of content creation.
Really, I just want to see the internet of the early days recreated. I doubt it's ever going to happen, though.
The general sense I get is that people are completely indifferent (at best) to the interests of creators. This leads, unfortunately, to rather shallow discussions. You may, for example, see complaints about "artificial scarcity", and I actually share their opinion that the deadweight losses of copyright are rather terrible.
What you won't see is any appreciation or consideration or even interest in the reason for the existence of copyright, except for lazy clichés of all politicians being corrupt.
That's a shame, because it precludes this community (and most of the wider tech community) from being a meaningful source of improvements. It also renders its opposition somewhat meaningless, because reasonable people who may be open to arguments tend to stop listening when they encounter the first platitude.
I think if people were less entrenched in this mindset, you'd see far more ideas for better solutions being generated in the comment. Just imagine a threat like this, but with an obtrusive law trying to prevent, say, lawnmower-related accidental deaths: You'd see a litany of ideas, some of which may actually not involve the blockchain.
One example very close to this copyright law is, well, this copyright law's other well-known provision establishing a new sort of IP for news publishers. It's similarly broad, and full of practical difficulties. But when/if it becomes actual law, the tech community will shoulder (part of) the blame for it. Because over the last decade or so, it has watched, or even cheered, the destruction of journalism. The early 2000s' glee of a future of independent bloggers replacing professional journalism has thankfully passed because nobody can still cling to that fantasy with straight face, except Clay Sharky (or whatever his name is; the self-appointed expert that looks like Tom Hanks). Today most seem to have adopted the alt-right's propaganda against "mainstream media", or at least lost interest in anything beyond oneself's short-term comfort.
Case in point: I think you could make an ad blocker that blocks 100% of ads that are annoying, dangerous, or tracking you, yet let unobtrusive ads pass. Something like that would likely block maybe 20% of ads, leaving 80% (and journalism's business model) intact while almost completely giving the users what they want. But the tech community sees no possible value in such a compromise, and ad blockers singularly compete on their ability to hurt creators (see, for example, the ad blocker that proudly proclaimed they would remove affiliate codes from amazon links: absolutely no difference for the reader, except possibly the joy of seeing others suffer).
It's quite obvious that the "other side" of the copyright debate isn't blameless. Perpetual extensions of copyright are a travesty, and so is the loss of appreciation of the value of "fair use". Personally, I believe copyright of maybe 5 years on movies, 10 on music, and two days on newspapers would, once again, deliver 80% of the upside (incentive to create) while also activating the potential of re-use, and generally making these works available for a far larger audience.
Sure you will. In the US, at least, copyright exists for the sole stated purpose of encouraging the production of more works by temporarily granting some exclusive rights over those works. In other words, the public wants both more works and a rich public domain; that's a tradeoff. Now, how much exclusivity, for how long, do you need to grant to generate more than enough revenue to justify almost any work ever produced? What incremental additional works will be produced by the umpteenth new expansion of copyright?
As you said: > Personally, I believe copyright of maybe 5 years on movies, 10 on music
If that, yes. And no more than 5 years on software, either, possibly less.
> I think if people were less entrenched in this mindset, you'd see far more ideas for better solutions being generated in the comment.
I've seen many good ideas, not least of which: make copyright shorter (5-10 years), and permit all non-commercial usage from day 1, limiting only commercial use for that duration. The problem is not in having ideas, it's in getting those ideas adopted.
> Case in point: I think you could make an ad blocker that blocks 100% of ads that are annoying, dangerous, or tracking you, yet let unobtrusive ads pass. Something like that would likely block maybe 20% of ads
You have a very different conception of what "annoying" means than many users of adblockers.
If my adblocker is blocking less than 100% of ads, it has a bug and will be fixed or replaced.
Tortuous not criminal. It's not an offense against people in general it's an offense against the creator to not seek their license to duplicate or modify the work. Why is it an offense, because we the demos (or our predecessors) have supposedly agreed to grant that right in exchange for works eventually entering the public domain.
This deal has been supremely perverted by lengthening copyright terms in the face of ever lower costs of publication and dissemination. _That_ is criminal.
[Aside: what's the Fair Use Act you mention? The only USC of that name I know of wasn't passed.]
Yes, there is, the Electronic Commerce Directive 2000.
Article 13 of the new proposed regulations specifically strips the "mere conduit" regulations of that directive.
because detecting nudity is a much much easier problem.