5 ms·

The opaque algorithms and trigger-happy strikes are to appease copyright holders, which leads into... The reason they don't litigate individuals is low ROI on

The opaque algorithms and trigger-happy strikes are to appease copyright holders, which leads into... The reason they don't litigate individuals is low ROI on litigating a small YouTube channel. That is true. However, Youtube without these tools in place would be sued out of existence. Copyright holders wouldn't ever come after 1 video, they would go after the platform hosting their IP without compensation. With every legal right to do so! Youtube cuts a good deal for them where they get god-tools, and in exchange, YouTube can continue to exist. Never said it was a good set up, but this idea that YouTube has another "easy choice" is pervasive.

monocasa 3y ago
YouTube is protected under the dmca safe harbor provisions. All they're required to do under US law is respond to DMCA requests. Content ID goes far above their legal requirements.
- graypegg 3y ago
  That has to be litigated to find out. Cases like Napster [0] and Grokster [1] set precedence for this sort of thing. They also used the DMCA in their defence, and they were still found culpable. These were decisions that were scoped by the method of delivery, so if YouTube was going to stop giving everyone a great deal, they'd be betting they have a solid case as to why their technology is legally distinct from those examples, and many others. (And conversely, like instances where the safe harbor clause has been used in a successful defence) That's a weird bet to take when the benefit is... people stop complaining about YouTube Content ID, and find something else to complain about? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%26M_Records,_Inc._v._Napster,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%26M_Records,_Inc._v._Napster.... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM_Studios,_Inc._v._Grokster,_Ltd https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM_Studios,_Inc._v._Grokster,....
  - monocasa 3y ago
    The Napster decision left the DMCA question open as it didn't affect the actual appeal, and was instead left to be decided at trial (which never occurred): > We do not agree that Napster's potential liability for contributory and vicarious infringement renders the Digital Millennium Copyright Act inapplicable per se. We instead recognize that this issue will be more fully developed at trial. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14102696336550697309&q=239+F.3d+1004&hl=en&as_sdt=6,39 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=141026963365506... The Grokster decision fails to mention the DMCA at all.

monocasa 3y ago

YouTube is protected under the dmca safe harbor provisions. All they're required to do under US law is respond to DMCA requests. Content ID goes far above their legal requirements.

graypegg 3y ago
That has to be litigated to find out. Cases like Napster [0] and Grokster [1] set precedence for this sort of thing. They also used the DMCA in their defence, and they were still found culpable. These were decisions that were scoped by the method of delivery, so if YouTube was going to stop giving everyone a great deal, they'd be betting they have a solid case as to why their technology is legally distinct from those examples, and many others. (And conversely, like instances where the safe harbor clause has been used in a successful defence) That's a weird bet to take when the benefit is... people stop complaining about YouTube Content ID, and find something else to complain about? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%26M_Records,_Inc._v._Napster,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%26M_Records,_Inc._v._Napster.... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM_Studios,_Inc._v._Grokster,_Ltd https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM_Studios,_Inc._v._Grokster,....
- monocasa 3y ago
  The Napster decision left the DMCA question open as it didn't affect the actual appeal, and was instead left to be decided at trial (which never occurred): > We do not agree that Napster's potential liability for contributory and vicarious infringement renders the Digital Millennium Copyright Act inapplicable per se. We instead recognize that this issue will be more fully developed at trial. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14102696336550697309&q=239+F.3d+1004&hl=en&as_sdt=6,39 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=141026963365506... The Grokster decision fails to mention the DMCA at all.