5 ms·

I expect it's true that they lose safe harbor, but I couldn't find anything saying that. Are you just guessing?

Animats 11y ago
17 U.S. Code § 512 - Limitations on liability relating to material online (c) Information Residing on Systems or Networks At Direction of Users.— "(1)In general.—A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the storage at the direction of a user of material that resides on a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider, if the service provider—" ... "(B) does not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity, in a case in which the service provider has the right and ability to control such activity"[1] That's the killer. This service not only charges, they charge on a per-course basis. That's direct financial benefit from the infringing activity. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512
- Spivak 11y ago
  > That's the killer. This service not only charges, they charge on a per-course basis. That seems relatively easy to weasel your way out of. Just sell 'download tokens' which enable the user to download any course on the site they want. Whatever legal argument YouTube is using to protect themselves from this with their new premium subscription would also have to apply here.
  - X-Istence 11y ago
    YouTube is simply selling you access to the site without advertisement. They are not otherwise demanding payment for the content on their site.
    - noomerikal 11y ago
      Isn't YT "[receiving] a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity [video views]"? Just wondering how they actually get around that?
      - X-Istence 11y ago
        I don't believe so because you are paying for an ad free experience. You are not paying for a particular video. They are not making money from the infringing activity (the copyrighted video).
      - igravious 11y ago
        YT (or at least, YT's lawyers) would say no. A financial benefit _directly_ attributable to the infringing activity would be charging for (access to) the content itself, that is to say, unless you pay you don't get to view the content in the first place. I would say that it is clear that _if_ YT is breaking even or making a profit via ad impressions providing the service that they provide then it is _indirectly_ benefiting. No, they are not directly monetizing the (alleged copyright infringing) content but they traffic is driven to their site and eyeballs continue to be view pages because of said (alleged copyright infringing) content which in turn is monetized via ad impressions. Which is why I have no problem with people running an ad blocker.

17 U.S. Code § 512 - Limitations on liability relating to material online (c) Information Residing on Systems or Networks At Direction of Users.— "(1)In general.—A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the storage at the direction of a user of material that resides on a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider, if the service provider—" ... "(B) does not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity, in a case in which the service provider has the right and ability to control such activity"[1] That's the killer. This service not only charges, they charge on a per-course basis. That's direct financial benefit from the infringing activity. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512

Spivak 11y ago
> That's the killer. This service not only charges, they charge on a per-course basis. That seems relatively easy to weasel your way out of. Just sell 'download tokens' which enable the user to download any course on the site they want. Whatever legal argument YouTube is using to protect themselves from this with their new premium subscription would also have to apply here.
- X-Istence 11y ago
  YouTube is simply selling you access to the site without advertisement. They are not otherwise demanding payment for the content on their site.
  - noomerikal 11y ago
    Isn't YT "[receiving] a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity [video views]"? Just wondering how they actually get around that?
    - X-Istence 11y ago
      I don't believe so because you are paying for an ad free experience. You are not paying for a particular video. They are not making money from the infringing activity (the copyrighted video).
    - igravious 11y ago
      YT (or at least, YT's lawyers) would say no. A financial benefit _directly_ attributable to the infringing activity would be charging for (access to) the content itself, that is to say, unless you pay you don't get to view the content in the first place. I would say that it is clear that _if_ YT is breaking even or making a profit via ad impressions providing the service that they provide then it is _indirectly_ benefiting. No, they are not directly monetizing the (alleged copyright infringing) content but they traffic is driven to their site and eyeballs continue to be view pages because of said (alleged copyright infringing) content which in turn is monetized via ad impressions. Which is why I have no problem with people running an ad blocker.