3 ms·
Why would we be against it? I know it’s an unpopular opinion on HN, but I don’t have a problem with Facebook and Google being made liable for the content on the
by jaabe 8y ago
Why would we be against it? I know it’s an unpopular opinion on HN, but I don’t have a problem with Facebook and Google being made liable for the content on their platforms.
Here is why: if you produce content, like music, you can put it on YouTube and YouTube will pay you for the views. They’ll only pay you for the content in your channels though, while themselves earning money from both the legal and illegal copies.
I’m not personally too worried about the privacy, people will always find a way to share, but the fact that YouTube makes money of the illegal content legally, just doesn’t sit right with me.
What’s even worse is that YouTube won’t tell us the profit ratios on our own content. Sure they’ll pay a record company to put music videos on an official channel, but they’ll never disclose how much money YouTube earns from it. Maybe it’s a fair split, maybe it’s not, but you have no way of knowing and you kind of have to be on YouTube. I mean, this last bit is where it becomes obvious that viewers are the product, because we only upload stuff to YouTube because they have all the damn users.
I know the fear machine, wants us to believe that private citizens wouldn’t be able to upload a video we filmed with a song playing in the background. But that’s actually already illegal. Only in its current form, it’s the private citizen who is liable and not the platform. I have no problem with switching that around, and make the platform liable instead of the individual. Maybe that will lead to more closed platforms, but my pets bet is that someone out there is willing to build a platform that allows the content and simply pays the royalties, for the same reason we accept the godawful YouTube contract. The users are valuable.
In Denmark, Sweden and Estonia we prefer the government to Google or Facebook, so naturally we support laws that moves power from the companies to the people.
- yeahforsureman 8y agotl;dr Never let your pets bet!
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- icebraining 8y agoThinking this law only affects Google and Facebook is the problem. Google and Facebook can afford to build those content recognition systems and pay those royalties. Can your local non-profit photo sharing community? Can a new video hosting service that makes less money because it doesn't surveil its users?
- jaabe 8y agoMy local non-profit sharing community is already liable. That’s my point. You couldn’t write a blog and share music a record company produced without permission. As soon as it was found, it would be taken down and you’d get fined. Why should YouTube or Facebook have that advantage over you?
- icebraining 8y agoNo, that's not true; a community that runs a photo hosting service is certainly protected if some user uploads protected content, just like YouTube (under the Electronic Commerce Directive 2000/31/EC). They would only not have protection if the copyright holder could prove the hosting community itself purposefully hosted such content. But neither would YouTube if they did the same.