3 ms·

Because how would you even do that with any sort of accuracy, do you check the global content registry database? Surely people dont expect to export the burden

Because how would you even do that with any sort of accuracy, do you check the global content registry database? Surely people dont expect to export the burden of protecting your IP to other companies?

FussyZeus 11y ago
If you're in the business of selling content you damn well ought to know who's content your selling. I'm not saying any system would be completely bulletproof, but you should at least look like you're TRYING.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- Spivak 11y ago
  So if I lease commercial land it's my responsibility to make sure my renter isn't laundering money? Whatever argument you make should also explain why the web hosting provider isn't also responsible for hosting and distributing pirated content. Certainly they should also look like they're trying to prevent copyright infringement on their network. > but you should at least look like you're TRYING. This kind of logic is how an automatic 'review' process gets implemented which just spins for a few minutes and then then accepts the video. The problem of detecting copyrighted content is so complex that without source level access you would never be able to prove definitively that their review process is just theater.
  - FussyZeus 11y ago
    Your metaphor isn't quite right, a better one would be "should a distributor of a given product be held responsible for determining if the goods they're given are stolen?" To that I would say: 1. A distributor would only use vetted manufacturers, or at least not buy from one again when the products purchased turn out to be stolen 2. When the products are digital, it's much easier to check if they are stolen than physical ones. 3. If it's been determined that a product is stolen, the distributor (generally) isn't held responsible but also isn't allowed to continue selling from the same stock. Also, I would argue that while it's impossible to detect everything (which is what I said initially too) there should be some legal requirement that the given distributor should show a reasonable attempt to enforce copyright law. The Content ID system, discounting all the ways its abused by a few big companies, is an excellent system for detecting copyright material, and would definitely show that YouTube is at least trying to prevent the spread of material that isn't legal. At the same time, it's clear by this post at least that Udemy is not only NOT vetting their content whatsoever but, similar to Facebook, makes the process to report said content intentionally difficult which I'm sure is not at all related to the fact that as long as said content is live, they're making money. In short, there's a difference between being a store owner who mistakenly bought stolen products one time, or being a distributor who makes regular business off of stolen product. One shouldn't be held to the fire, one really should.
wattengard 11y ago
Screenshot of one of the projects in Adobe Premiere/video editor used?

FussyZeus 11y ago

If you're in the business of selling content you damn well ought to know who's content your selling. I'm not saying any system would be completely bulletproof, but you should at least look like you're TRYING.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
Spivak 11y ago
So if I lease commercial land it's my responsibility to make sure my renter isn't laundering money? Whatever argument you make should also explain why the web hosting provider isn't also responsible for hosting and distributing pirated content. Certainly they should also look like they're trying to prevent copyright infringement on their network. > but you should at least look like you're TRYING. This kind of logic is how an automatic 'review' process gets implemented which just spins for a few minutes and then then accepts the video. The problem of detecting copyrighted content is so complex that without source level access you would never be able to prove definitively that their review process is just theater.
- FussyZeus 11y ago
  Your metaphor isn't quite right, a better one would be "should a distributor of a given product be held responsible for determining if the goods they're given are stolen?" To that I would say: 1. A distributor would only use vetted manufacturers, or at least not buy from one again when the products purchased turn out to be stolen 2. When the products are digital, it's much easier to check if they are stolen than physical ones. 3. If it's been determined that a product is stolen, the distributor (generally) isn't held responsible but also isn't allowed to continue selling from the same stock. Also, I would argue that while it's impossible to detect everything (which is what I said initially too) there should be some legal requirement that the given distributor should show a reasonable attempt to enforce copyright law. The Content ID system, discounting all the ways its abused by a few big companies, is an excellent system for detecting copyright material, and would definitely show that YouTube is at least trying to prevent the spread of material that isn't legal. At the same time, it's clear by this post at least that Udemy is not only NOT vetting their content whatsoever but, similar to Facebook, makes the process to report said content intentionally difficult which I'm sure is not at all related to the fact that as long as said content is live, they're making money. In short, there's a difference between being a store owner who mistakenly bought stolen products one time, or being a distributor who makes regular business off of stolen product. One shouldn't be held to the fire, one really should.

wattengard 11y ago

Screenshot of one of the projects in Adobe Premiere/video editor used?