3 ms·
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
by 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.
- lovich 8y agoAll I'm getting out of your argument if YouTube is using these arguments they are trying to say that they do so much business they should be allowed to skip rules, and that they are potentially violating orders of magnitude more copyright than other industries. Should we allow companies to skip out on laws just because they scaled their business up?
- LanceH 8y agoA newspaper isn't the right metaphor. Google runs a print shopt.
- lovich 8y agoIt's not a metaphor. They both engage in referencing copyrighted material, but YouTube gets to skip out on the laws that appky to other industries. This board is usually in agreement that patents that are effectively of the pattern of "were doing something that's been done before, but it's on the internet so it's different now" are complete bullshit. Why are we giving a pass to internet based companies when it comes to copyright, just because they are making a lot of money?
- naibafo 8y agoNo, Youtube takes a cut from the ads that are run on the videos of the creators. So they are directly profitting from the content. A print shop as metaphor would work if a creator would have to pay youtube to host his video, but all further proceeds would go solely to him. If Youtube profits directly from whatever they are hosting it is not that farfetched to say that they might also be liable for what is shown