3 ms·

100% agree. They reap the benefits of the automation efficiency while not paying the costs of it. I think these companies should be considered directly responsi

by pokot0 5y ago

100% agree. They reap the benefits of the automation efficiency while not paying the costs of it. I think these companies should be considered directly responsible if they don't pay royalties to the rightful owners. This should include how the royalties are split when multiple properties are connected to the same Ad (ex: one video that contains a song and a commentary). Right now, for their convenience they only pay the stronger party (usually the song rights holder) and ignore the other party. I think they should be legally required to split the revenues fairly. Is it a hard problem to solve and risk a lawsuit hell? Sure, but they did solve way harder problems when they had the incentive to do so and certainly have the resources to solve this one. It's also rather easy to solve 90% of the problem and not being blatantly unfair, and I think 90% is way better than 0%.

SR2Z 5y ago
To put this really bluntly, these companies would _prefer_ that kind of system. Right now the problem is that they are held legally liable if they incorrectly reject a copyright complaint (which, by the way, can only be determined to be valid in court) but only run the risk of pissing off users if they accept a fraudulent one. The problem here is not convenience, it's that copyright was designed for an era when it was kind of hard to copy things. The DMCA was a good shim to make it feasible for Internet companies to even exist, but it's not enough to fix things in a world where literally every single bit of IP can be copied or downloaded in less than a day. If, for example, Congress required content owners to submit copies of their works to some centralized US copyright database as a condition for being eligible to receive damages from platforms, that would go a long way to fix things on its own. Expanding the explicit set of fair use exemptions and allowing them to matter outside of a court would also be a big help.

by pokot0 5y ago

SR2Z 5y ago

To put this really bluntly, these companies would _prefer_ that kind of system. Right now the problem is that they are held legally liable if they incorrectly reject a copyright complaint (which, by the way, can only be determined to be valid in court) but only run the risk of pissing off users if they accept a fraudulent one. The problem here is not convenience, it's that copyright was designed for an era when it was kind of hard to copy things. The DMCA was a good shim to make it feasible for Internet companies to even exist, but it's not enough to fix things in a world where literally every single bit of IP can be copied or downloaded in less than a day. If, for example, Congress required content owners to submit copies of their works to some centralized US copyright database as a condition for being eligible to receive damages from platforms, that would go a long way to fix things on its own. Expanding the explicit set of fair use exemptions and allowing them to matter outside of a court would also be a big help.