4 ms·
Why should platforms not be held liable for copyright infringement? Most of them are directly benefiting from distributing pirated content (page views), which
by tmalsburg2 8y ago
Why should platforms not be held liable for copyright infringement? Most of them are directly benefiting from distributing pirated content (page views), which means they have a selfish interest not to act forcefully against copyright infringement. For instance, Youtube would likely not have been the success that it was without pirated content.
Edit: It's okay to disagree with my comment. But why not share your view with us instead of just downvoting me?
- mattnewton 8y agoI am against stronger copyright protections as a whole. I think it effectively hands over large swaths of culture to large corporations forever and can make free speech onerous. I would also like a new YouTube to have a similar shot at existing and not “close the door” by legally requiring programs that only large existing companies can implement.
- ghaff 8y agoYouTube is a really interesting case. I'm probably not unique in thinking they were going to go the way of Napster given how much of the content of YouTube 1.0 infringed copyrights. It operated in a time when "user-generated content" wasn't nearly as big a thing and certainly wasn't monetizable for the most part. I doubt they'd have made it out the other side had Google not acquired them.
- padthai 8y agoCopyright infringement is still big in Youtube. It is flooded with stolen content. Big things The Simpson or Family guy or even full films. But also compilation channels from other Youtubers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRwTep1kvrw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRwTep1kvrw
- DanBC 8y agoBut youtube has mechanisms to remove monetisation from the uploader and funnel it to the rights-holder. I haven't read the proposed EU regulation, and it sounds like there's a bunch more stuff in it. It would have been nice if Techdirt had a clear link to the proposal.
- padthai 8y agoI completely agree with you. Some channels get some money before they get closed though.
- extra88 8y agoShould FedEx be liable if someone ships a picture of an iPhone and a block of wood instead of the real iPhone that was ordered?
- tmalsburg2 8y agoShould FedEx be held liable if they knowingly deliver a bomb to someone?
- extra88 8y agoHow would FedEx employees come to know it's a bomb? Should they open and chemically test every box's contents? YouTube alone has one 300 hours of video uploaded every minute. How are they to determine whether any of that is infringing on someone else's copyright without error or trampling on Fair Use / Fair Dealing?
- nilsocket 8y agoYouTube does take lot of effort, to recognize and take action of copyright-infringement and piracy. They even have some videos explaining what copyright-infringement is? If a uploader is reported or found uploading any videos which breaks there terms of service for three times, your account is going to be permanently banned. They do have complex algorithms, which searches for matching video content, once your video is uploaded, some uploaders just get away, by decreasing the screen size or by adding some watermarks or logos ...
- sbhn 8y agoCisco, the company that makes routers, directly benefits from copyright infringement. So does the maker of your favourite operating system, the manufacturer of you mouse, keyboard, monitor and speakers.
- weberc2 8y agoBecause it’s an undue burden on the party that mostly isn’t involved and it raises the overall cost of operating a website, and these costs are felt disproportionately by small businesses and private parties compared to big incumbent businesses. It’s simpler, more ethical, and more effective to punish the offender.