3 ms·
>No need to for speculation. No one is speculating here. Read the discussion again. The argument was literally "if youtube execs had emails showing that they w
by sigmoid10 2y ago
>No need to for speculation.
No one is speculating here. Read the discussion again. The argument was literally "if youtube execs had emails showing that they were actively encouraging and participating in the posting of copyrighted material on the site they would have been prosecuted as well"
That is blatantly false. No need to sugarcoat this.
- lesuorac 2y agoIf it's so blatantly false why can't you quote the emails? It's not like they're not publicly available in the lawsuits. You're conflating emails from Google Videos with YouTube ... Those are separate products and at one point even competitors. That would be like using emails sent amongst Trump staffers to prosecute Joe Biden for treason. Keep in mind, that quote is in relation to why Viacom "roughed up" their videos. Which you literally asked for speculation on in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41266386 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41266386 .