5 ms·

A newspaper curates their content and is legally liable for any copyright violations along with civil liability in the US. Many platforms like YouTube are cura

A newspaper curates their content and is legally liable for any copyright violations along with civil liability in the US. Many platforms like YouTube are curating content, but don't want to have the responsibility. It gives these platforms a unfair advantage, to the detriment of media outlets and because of the pseudo monopoly status of them has a chilling effect on diverse ideas. Many, who are experts on the law also feel that it is going beyond the "good samaritan" allowance of section 230 the way they are currently being performed.

matt4077 8y ago
> going beyond the "good samaritan" allowance of section 230 the way they are currently being performed. 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 http://www.cybertelecom.org/cda/samaritan.htm
TulliusCicero 8y ago
There's a fundamental difference between curating content like a newspaper does vs what Youtube and similar sites do. It's a whitelist vs blacklist approach: a newspaper approves things one by one and only has so much content, while Youtube allows anything by default and then removes thing in certain categories. 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.
- youeseh 8y ago
  When you visit youtube.com, you are shown a small slice of all the videos in the YouTube database that YouTube thinks you should watch. Isn't that curation? YouTube tries to automate curation with the use of algorithms that cater content to who they think their visitor is.
  - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
    > When you visit youtube.com, you are shown a small slice of all the videos in the YouTube database that YouTube thinks you should watch. Isn't that curation? 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.
  - TulliusCicero 8y ago
    > Isn't that curation? 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.
    - youeseh 8y ago
      Ah, good point.
    - da_chicken 8y ago
      Eh, there is some functional equivalence. Less than 5% of videos on YouTube have more than 10,000 views [0]. That means the vast majority of videos are functionally not published. YouTube won't promote any of those videos. They won't show up in on the Home page, let alone the Trending page. They're very unlikely to show up in recommended videos. Unless you're looking for that specific person or a very narrow topic, you're not going to find these channels, let alone these videos. [0]: https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2016/05/19/1-percent-youtube-videos-94-percent-views/ https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2016/05/19/1-percent-youtub...
      - topoftheforts 8y ago
        I don't really get what you're trying to prove here, I mean yes we can see the algorithm as a form of curation but the point here's different, newspapers have a set amount of pages and articles whereas YouTube has 400 hours of content uploaded every minute. Hence it's not fair to compare the two of them, in my opinion.
- golemotron 8y ago
  > There's a fundamental difference between curating content like a newspaper does vs what Youtube and similar sites do. It's a whitelist vs blacklist approach: a newspaper approves things one by one and only has so much content, while Youtube allows anything by default and then removes thing in certain categories. That distinction is no solace if your copyright is being violated or you are being defamed in an unaddressable way.
  - JoshTriplett 8y ago
    > 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?
    - ocdtrekkie 8y ago
      The problem with individual takedown notices is that they don't scale. The same excuse YouTube is making for why they can't police the illegal content they host, is why sending individual takedown notices similarly isn't a manageable system to remove illegal content on the platform. People can upload illegal content faster than lawyers can issue takedown notices for them.
      - macspoofing 8y ago
        >The problem with individual takedown notices is that they don't scale 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?
      - JoshTriplett 8y ago
        > The problem with individual takedown notices is that they don't scale. > 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.)
- rtpg 8y ago
  The fact that Youtube works on a blacklist is a choice of their own. It's still them hosting and publishing the videos. 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
srkmno 8y ago
Then why not give newspapers the same protection if that is the issue, it's preferable to throwing the baby with bathwater so to speak.
- Barrin92 8y ago
  If I have the choice between making Youtube more like a newspaper or making my newspaper more like Youtube, I at least know which option I would prefer. 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.
  - ArchTypical 8y ago
    > If we can replace generic, low quality content... 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.
    - exergy 8y ago
Mauricio_ 8y ago
A newspaper creates the content, they are not curators.

matt4077 8y ago

> going beyond the "good samaritan" allowance of section 230 the way they are currently being performed. 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 http://www.cybertelecom.org/cda/samaritan.htm

TulliusCicero 8y ago

There's a fundamental difference between curating content like a newspaper does vs what Youtube and similar sites do. It's a whitelist vs blacklist approach: a newspaper approves things one by one and only has so much content, while Youtube allows anything by default and then removes thing in certain categories. 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.

youeseh 8y ago
When you visit youtube.com, you are shown a small slice of all the videos in the YouTube database that YouTube thinks you should watch. Isn't that curation? YouTube tries to automate curation with the use of algorithms that cater content to who they think their visitor is.
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago
  > When you visit youtube.com, you are shown a small slice of all the videos in the YouTube database that YouTube thinks you should watch. Isn't that curation? 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.
- TulliusCicero 8y ago
  > Isn't that curation? 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.
  - youeseh 8y ago
    Ah, good point.
  - da_chicken 8y ago
    Eh, there is some functional equivalence. Less than 5% of videos on YouTube have more than 10,000 views [0]. That means the vast majority of videos are functionally not published. YouTube won't promote any of those videos. They won't show up in on the Home page, let alone the Trending page. They're very unlikely to show up in recommended videos. Unless you're looking for that specific person or a very narrow topic, you're not going to find these channels, let alone these videos. [0]: https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2016/05/19/1-percent-youtube-videos-94-percent-views/ https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2016/05/19/1-percent-youtub...
    - topoftheforts 8y ago
      I don't really get what you're trying to prove here, I mean yes we can see the algorithm as a form of curation but the point here's different, newspapers have a set amount of pages and articles whereas YouTube has 400 hours of content uploaded every minute. Hence it's not fair to compare the two of them, in my opinion.
golemotron 8y ago
> There's a fundamental difference between curating content like a newspaper does vs what Youtube and similar sites do. It's a whitelist vs blacklist approach: a newspaper approves things one by one and only has so much content, while Youtube allows anything by default and then removes thing in certain categories. That distinction is no solace if your copyright is being violated or you are being defamed in an unaddressable way.
- JoshTriplett 8y ago
  > 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?
  - ocdtrekkie 8y ago
    The problem with individual takedown notices is that they don't scale. The same excuse YouTube is making for why they can't police the illegal content they host, is why sending individual takedown notices similarly isn't a manageable system to remove illegal content on the platform. People can upload illegal content faster than lawyers can issue takedown notices for them.
    - macspoofing 8y ago
      >The problem with individual takedown notices is that they don't scale 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?
    - JoshTriplett 8y ago
      > The problem with individual takedown notices is that they don't scale. > 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.)
rtpg 8y ago
The fact that Youtube works on a blacklist is a choice of their own. It's still them hosting and publishing the videos. 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

srkmno 8y ago

Then why not give newspapers the same protection if that is the issue, it's preferable to throwing the baby with bathwater so to speak.

Barrin92 8y ago
If I have the choice between making Youtube more like a newspaper or making my newspaper more like Youtube, I at least know which option I would prefer. 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.
- ArchTypical 8y ago
  > If we can replace generic, low quality content... 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.
  - exergy 8y ago

Mauricio_ 8y ago

A newspaper creates the content, they are not curators.