I think what this article don't realize is that Italy's ruling is BENEFICIAL to large corporations, not some sort of "equalizing" factor. Every time some sort o

I think what this article don't realize is that Italy's ruling is BENEFICIAL to large corporations, not some sort of "equalizing" factor. Every time some sort of ridiculous regulation has been put in place the big corporations have had the capital to comply, and the individuals have been given even more roadblocks to compete. The lack of imagination is not in not imagining a peer to peer web, but rather in not imagining a Google that can innovate around these restrictions. Take this safe harbor thing. Let's say that it becomes abolished for sites like YouTube across the board. Do you think Google would say "oh too bad, time to shut down the site". Of course not. Google has the money to pay for a million mechanical-turk style people to view every video, and the innovative prowess to create programs that would do filtering as well. The end result would be that they would probably err on the side of being too cautious, and we'd have a YouTube with far less content. However, the true problem here is that if I now wanted to compete with YouTube, it would be impossibly difficult due solely to the liability of it all. I can't afford to have a huge staff looking at every video, or massive servers running analysis on every upload. So all of a sudden what you've done is SOLIDIFY YouTube's stranglehold on content. Not to mention that you've all of a sudden given Google the perfect excuse for denying any content they want, they can now just hide behind "liability concerns". We've already seen that companies abuse DMCA takedowns with fair use, of course there would be abuse of this as well.