2 ms·
Probably because it would cost them time and effort, but they have no incentive to do so. Why would they? At most, when cases such as this come to the public's
by Mordisquitos 6y ago
Probably because it would cost them time and effort, but they have no incentive to do so. Why would they? At most, when cases such as this come to the public's attention, all that YouTube suffers is inconsequential reputational damage. This is easily and cheaply mitigated in PR terms if it gets bad enough by just handling the incident with a quick "Oops, sorry, our bad" and reinstating the removed material.
Meanwhile, the uncountable cases of illegitimate copyright takedowns which never make the news don't matter. What are the victims going to do about it? Sue? Use a YouTube competitor?
- durnygbur 6y ago> YouTube suffers is inconsequential reputational damage No such thing exists. Using "reputation damage" in context of YouTube, or any Google service really doesn't make any sense.
- ziftface 6y agoEven the marketing you mentioned isn't really necessary. That's what happened when you're a monopoly, bad reputation doesn't really hurt the bottom line.
- kzrdude 6y agoThe only defender of the rights holders without money would be the court system, so a court needs to suspend youtube's copyright strike system.