4 ms·

You run a site. On this site, copyright infringing material is available and distributed. This is criminal. Is the excuse "Someone else put it there" valid? No,

You run a site. On this site, copyright infringing material is available and distributed. This is criminal. Is the excuse "Someone else put it there" valid? No, because you allowed them to put it there. Essentially, it is exactly the same legal issue that has already been settled my The Pirate Bay trial. Note that there is nothing like the DMCA nor the Fair Use Act in the EU.

saagarjha 8y ago
You are making it seem like there is active acceptance of the posting of infringing material, when in fact it is very hard to prevent this material from being posted in the first place.
- bjourne 8y ago
  Then why is porn so hard to find on YouTube? :p I agree that it is hard to prevent the material from being posted, but identifying it as infringing isn't. The trick is for YouTube to only analyze those videos garnering millions of view. Doesn't matter if those with <10 views are infringing because no one watches them anyway.
  - realusername 8y ago
    > Then why is porn so hard to find on YouTube? because detecting nudity is a much much easier problem.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - bjourne 8y ago
      Pray tell, why on earth would detecting porn be easier than copyrigtht infringement?
      - Walf 8y ago
        Nudity is visually detectable, it's in front of the camera. Attributing ownership of content the same way is like trying to guess the CEO of a cereal company by looking at the cartoon characters on the box.
        bjourne 8y ago
        You're flailing wildly. YouTube of course contains lots and lots of nudity, it is porn that it doesn't feature.
        Walf 8y ago
        Flailing wildly?! Ha! What is it, exactly you think their algorithms do besides detecting sexually explicit imagery? You know it's mostly machines that are flagging videos for review before a human decides whether it's porn or not, right?
      - realusername 8y ago
        Because there's billions of copyright materials without any common point, even some of them where the ownership is unknown or hard to trace whereas detecting porn is a mostly solved machine learning problem you can even build yourself.
pbhjpbhj 8y ago
>You run a site. On this site, copyright infringing material is available and distributed. This is criminal. // Tortuous not criminal. It's not an offense against people in general it's an offense against the creator to not seek their license to duplicate or modify the work. Why is it an offense, because we the demos (or our predecessors) have supposedly agreed to grant that right in exchange for works eventually entering the public domain. This deal has been supremely perverted by lengthening copyright terms in the face of ever lower costs of publication and dissemination. _That_ is criminal. [Aside: what's the Fair Use Act you mention? The only USC of that name I know of wasn't passed.]
- bjourne 8y ago
  Tort doesn't exist in civil law systems. I meant the Fair Use exemption in American law. Nothing as far reaching exist in European law.
kllrnohj 8y ago
> Note that there is nothing like the DMCA nor the Fair Use Act in the EU. Yes, there is, the Electronic Commerce Directive 2000. Article 13 of the new proposed regulations specifically strips the "mere conduit" regulations of that directive.

saagarjha 8y ago

You are making it seem like there is active acceptance of the posting of infringing material, when in fact it is very hard to prevent this material from being posted in the first place.

bjourne 8y ago
Then why is porn so hard to find on YouTube? :p I agree that it is hard to prevent the material from being posted, but identifying it as infringing isn't. The trick is for YouTube to only analyze those videos garnering millions of view. Doesn't matter if those with <10 views are infringing because no one watches them anyway.
- realusername 8y ago
  > Then why is porn so hard to find on YouTube? because detecting nudity is a much much easier problem.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - bjourne 8y ago
    Pray tell, why on earth would detecting porn be easier than copyrigtht infringement?
    - Walf 8y ago
      Nudity is visually detectable, it's in front of the camera. Attributing ownership of content the same way is like trying to guess the CEO of a cereal company by looking at the cartoon characters on the box.
      - bjourne 8y ago
        You're flailing wildly. YouTube of course contains lots and lots of nudity, it is porn that it doesn't feature.
        Walf 8y ago
        Flailing wildly?! Ha! What is it, exactly you think their algorithms do besides detecting sexually explicit imagery? You know it's mostly machines that are flagging videos for review before a human decides whether it's porn or not, right?
    - realusername 8y ago
      Because there's billions of copyright materials without any common point, even some of them where the ownership is unknown or hard to trace whereas detecting porn is a mostly solved machine learning problem you can even build yourself.

pbhjpbhj 8y ago

>You run a site. On this site, copyright infringing material is available and distributed. This is criminal. // Tortuous not criminal. It's not an offense against people in general it's an offense against the creator to not seek their license to duplicate or modify the work. Why is it an offense, because we the demos (or our predecessors) have supposedly agreed to grant that right in exchange for works eventually entering the public domain. This deal has been supremely perverted by lengthening copyright terms in the face of ever lower costs of publication and dissemination. _That_ is criminal. [Aside: what's the Fair Use Act you mention? The only USC of that name I know of wasn't passed.]

bjourne 8y ago
Tort doesn't exist in civil law systems. I meant the Fair Use exemption in American law. Nothing as far reaching exist in European law.

kllrnohj 8y ago

> Note that there is nothing like the DMCA nor the Fair Use Act in the EU. Yes, there is, the Electronic Commerce Directive 2000. Article 13 of the new proposed regulations specifically strips the "mere conduit" regulations of that directive.