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.
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.
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 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?
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?
> 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.)
Filing suit against the publisher is not bypassing the legal system, it is addressing the one that causes harm.
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
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