4 ms·

Google has two options here: 1) Accept all take down notices at face value and let the courts handle disputes 2) Become a mediator and open themselves up for

Google has two options here: 1) Accept all take down notices at face value and let the courts handle disputes 2) Become a mediator and open themselves up for liability It's no surprise Google chooses option 1 given the scale they must operate at. It's a consequence of the legal system which makes Google liable for not taking action immediately on valid claims, but also making it such validity not determined until after claims have been reviewed by the courts.

jamwil 3y ago
And a consequence of their choice to operate at a certain scale.
- MichaelZuo 3y ago
  To be fair to Google even if Youtube shrunk overnight to Vimeo size they would still likely follow the same policy, due to how the law is written. In fact that might be Vimeo's current policy too, though I'm not sure on their end.
- ghusto 3y ago
  Exactly this. Nobody is holding a gun to their heads and demanding they operate at an untenable scale. Unbridled capitalism forces that.
sneak 3y ago
This is a false dichotomy that lets Google off the hook for irresponsibility and amorality. If Google’s management is not responsible for Google’s pathological behavior, then nobody is.
- BizarroLand 3y ago
  Exactly. It's not like it would be that difficult to provide a single shred of support for users that isn't hidden at the center of a labyrinth that most people cannot find their way through, but excusing that by saying the larger labyrinth is even more difficult overlooks the fact that labyrinths are inherently designed to contain evil and we shouldn't ever have to navigate them. Labyrinths are designed to trap monsters. The only reason to put humans into them is to feed those monsters.
- johnnyanmac 3y ago
  Who's going to take them to court for being too strict? That's the issue. Also, I'll admit it feels strange to monetized what is now public domain works to begin with. That's the least of the issues here but still one to consider with such works going forth.
- deelowe 3y ago
  No, this is a result of how the DMCA is written. If a content distributor is notified of infringing content, they must take immediate action or else face penalties. The problem is, there's no definitely way for a content distributor to know if content is truly infringing until a court has made it's decision. This puts content distributors in a precarious position. The only way to ensure liability is minimized is to to assume any complaint is valid and take immediate then arbitrate on the back-end.

jamwil 3y ago

And a consequence of their choice to operate at a certain scale.

MichaelZuo 3y ago
To be fair to Google even if Youtube shrunk overnight to Vimeo size they would still likely follow the same policy, due to how the law is written. In fact that might be Vimeo's current policy too, though I'm not sure on their end.
ghusto 3y ago
Exactly this. Nobody is holding a gun to their heads and demanding they operate at an untenable scale. Unbridled capitalism forces that.

sneak 3y ago

This is a false dichotomy that lets Google off the hook for irresponsibility and amorality. If Google’s management is not responsible for Google’s pathological behavior, then nobody is.

BizarroLand 3y ago
Exactly. It's not like it would be that difficult to provide a single shred of support for users that isn't hidden at the center of a labyrinth that most people cannot find their way through, but excusing that by saying the larger labyrinth is even more difficult overlooks the fact that labyrinths are inherently designed to contain evil and we shouldn't ever have to navigate them. Labyrinths are designed to trap monsters. The only reason to put humans into them is to feed those monsters.
johnnyanmac 3y ago
Who's going to take them to court for being too strict? That's the issue. Also, I'll admit it feels strange to monetized what is now public domain works to begin with. That's the least of the issues here but still one to consider with such works going forth.
deelowe 3y ago
No, this is a result of how the DMCA is written. If a content distributor is notified of infringing content, they must take immediate action or else face penalties. The problem is, there's no definitely way for a content distributor to know if content is truly infringing until a court has made it's decision. This puts content distributors in a precarious position. The only way to ensure liability is minimized is to to assume any complaint is valid and take immediate then arbitrate on the back-end.