4 ms·
To review ALL of it. Are you suggesting Google can't slow uploads to a human reviewable rate? It's basically saying ai should be allowed to break the law, bec
by yeahitslikethat 8y ago
To review ALL of it.
Are you suggesting Google can't slow uploads to a human reviewable rate?
It's basically saying ai should be allowed to break the law, because it can't avoid breaking the law well enough.
- cortesoft 8y agoExcept they aren't breaking the law; the law says they have to respond to takedown requests, not that they have to be responsible for every upload. The law breaker is the uploaded of copyrighted materials.
- yeahitslikethat 8y agoThey are breaking the law: An OSP must "not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity" to qualify for § 512(c) protection. However, it is not always easy to determine what qualifies as a direct financial benefit under the statute. One example of an OSP that did receive a direct financial benefit from infringing activity was Napster. In A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.,[10] the court held that copyrighted material on Napster's system created a "draw" for customers which resulted in a direct financial benefit because Napster's future revenue was directly dependent on increases in user-base. Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringemen...
- Buge 8y agoHow is it possible to review all of it? How can a human know whether a song is infringing someone else's rights or is an original work by the uploader?