5 ms·
This is similar to leaving your personal property contents in a storage locker / unit / container that you don't own. Except it being digital, and given the st
by adventured 5y ago
This is similar to leaving your personal property contents in a storage locker / unit / container that you don't own.
Except it being digital, and given the storage isn't / never was being paid for, you're going to get that much less sympathy from the judicial system - entirely appropriately.
No, there's no legislative solution to something like this. The content owner has no standing and it's difficult to find an argument in favor of why they should.
Use services of companies you can trust, and or host your own content. If the content is important, pay for its hosting, because that's the rational thing to do, buy the service level to match the value of your content. That's the correct solution to this problem. You can't trust YouTube in that sort of use case and we don't need a giant new federal agency to make YouTube host videos long-term against their will, it's absurd. Hosting those videos on Hetzner or DigitalOcean or similar would be inexpensive for a small business (or use a paid video hosting service, I'm sure there are several of those around).
The content owner likely wanted to use YouTube because it's free. That turned out as one might expect.
- tanseydavid 5y agoIt should be treated like an easement.
- D13Fd 5y agoAn easement is actually a very strong real property right. That term doesn't really apply in this context though. Here you just need a "right" to download your content before it is deleted.
- doctor_eval 5y agoI don’t think this analogy is correct. Instead, I’d say the analogous case is more like loaning your art to a gallery. The gallery makes a profit from the thousands of people who pay to view the art that you provided at your own expense. Then, one day someone at the gallery decides that the art contains something that doesn’t look right. Maybe it’s a peach, in the background, that looks like a butt. So, to resolve the problem, they burn all of your art to the ground.
- Ekaros 5y agoBad analogy. Better would be that you have taken nice picture. You give this to art-gallery to show. As it is all digital they get a copy. And then you think oh art-gallery has it I can destroy my original. And then art-gallery thinks that it is not needed anymore and copy really has no extra value and destroys it. The fault is not with gallery destroying copy, but with destruction of the original.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]