3 ms·

I mean we have DMCA that requires mass enforcement of copyright, so the "fine YouTube every time some throwaway account uploads" ship already sailed. Honestly,

by Pxtl 3y ago

I mean we have DMCA that requires mass enforcement of copyright, so the "fine YouTube every time some throwaway account uploads" ship already sailed. Honestly, in this age of bulk uploaded disinfo, I'm kinda disappointed that only copyright gets that kind of extreme protection... but I suppose it's much easier to do copyright since IDing an exact copy of a given source is infinitely simpler than detecting eg defamation.

tzs 3y ago
DMCA gets hosts out of being fined for user uploads or even having to think much about it. YouTube has their own system that goes well beyond DMCA, probably because they want to encourage the copyright owner to agree to accept monetization of the infringing material instead of having it removed. For a host that just sticks to DMCA it is quite simple. 1. A claimant alleges that a user is infringing their copyright. 2. The notifies the alleged infringer and removes the content. 3. If the alleged infringer disagrees that the content is infringing they notify the host. 4. The host notifies claimant that the user disputes the claim, and gives the claimant the user's contact information. 5. If the host does not receive within a couple weeks proof from the claimant that the claimant has filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against the user the host puts the content back up.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
woooooo 3y ago
Copyright isn't only trivially definable, it's uncontroversial. Let's say you decided to police "disinformation" about the current Israel/Gaza conflict. In about 5 seconds you'll be inundated with propagandists trying to define what is "true" and what's "disinformation".
- AlecSchueler 3y ago
  But if you decide to police pornography made using the image of real people against their will it should be a bit easier right?
- Pxtl 3y ago
  > trivially definable People who try to work within fair use rules will disagree on that point.

by Pxtl 3y ago

tzs 3y ago

DMCA gets hosts out of being fined for user uploads or even having to think much about it. YouTube has their own system that goes well beyond DMCA, probably because they want to encourage the copyright owner to agree to accept monetization of the infringing material instead of having it removed. For a host that just sticks to DMCA it is quite simple. 1. A claimant alleges that a user is infringing their copyright. 2. The notifies the alleged infringer and removes the content. 3. If the alleged infringer disagrees that the content is infringing they notify the host. 4. The host notifies claimant that the user disputes the claim, and gives the claimant the user's contact information. 5. If the host does not receive within a couple weeks proof from the claimant that the claimant has filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against the user the host puts the content back up.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

woooooo 3y ago

Copyright isn't only trivially definable, it's uncontroversial. Let's say you decided to police "disinformation" about the current Israel/Gaza conflict. In about 5 seconds you'll be inundated with propagandists trying to define what is "true" and what's "disinformation".

AlecSchueler 3y ago
But if you decide to police pornography made using the image of real people against their will it should be a bit easier right?
Pxtl 3y ago
> trivially definable People who try to work within fair use rules will disagree on that point.