3 ms·
Let's pretend for a minute that Google's DMCA system is actually necessary to comply with the law (other commenters below poke a number of holes in that claim,
by mirashii 4y ago
Let's pretend for a minute that Google's DMCA system is actually necessary to comply with the law (other commenters below poke a number of holes in that claim, I don't need to repeat them here), and that it's the DMCA that's the primary method by which copyright strikes happen (also questionable and discussed in other comments).
Even given those things, Google is complicit in the legal landscape being what it is today. Google has regularly defended the DMCA, and claimed it's working well. They're the largest lobbying organization in the tech world. They've even spent time and money defending other providers (e.g. Hotfile) in court for not implementing filtering, arguing that it's not necessary to receive DMCA's safe harbor provisions, but have implemented content identification and filtering in-spite of that.
- Nasrudith 4y agoYou miss the context of "in the face of anti Section-230 and worse bills". How is defending /not/ filtering being complicit anyway? That is about as strong a "personal choice" a stance a company can take.
- mirashii 4y agoSection 230 only provides more legal shield, not less. The OP to which I responded did not name other, non-DMCA legislation. A much stronger statement would be defending their right not to do it and then, crucially, not doing it.