3 ms·

This video is great. One of the better uses of the Internet. Google/YouTube/Alphabet should be doing everything they can to encourage high-quality educational

by neilv 2y ago

This video is great. One of the better uses of the Internet. Google/YouTube/Alphabet should be doing everything they can to encourage high-quality educational content like this, rather than being party to suppressing it.

sneak 2y ago
Anyone with a return address and big cash flows is ultimately a slave to the civil court system, with all of its inherent flaws (such as claims without merit being able to cost you thousands of dollars that you cannot recoup). It is in the best interest of large hosting companies, datacenters, and UGC sites to shy away from anything that remotely smells of liability because the costs can instantly far exceed the revenues from small customers due to the flaws of the US legal system. Many other civil systems use a “loser pays” model for funding lawyers, but if you get sued in the US and win, you still have to pay for your own lawyers unless you countersue (and your opponent is collectible). This opens up a very obvious denial of service attack.
- neilv 2y ago
  In this case, doesn't the injustice work for Alphabet (not that that's just)? Can't they just establish a "we will not negotiate with terrorists" kind of reputation, and when they see abusive misuse of DMCA, then the abuser is facing very deep pockets of Alphabet, who is motivated to make a lesson of them?
  - slavik81 2y ago
    Google's current approach to copyright on YouTube was adopted following their settlement agreement with Viacom [1]. While the terms were never disclosed, that settlement probably constrains how Google can handle copyright policing on YouTube. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_International_Inc._v._YouTube,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_International_Inc._v._Y....
colonelpopcorn 2y ago
I agree, but the incentives for Alphabet to encourage content like this isn't there. The content that is encouraged is that which keeps eyeballs glued to YouTube.

by neilv 2y ago

sneak 2y ago

Anyone with a return address and big cash flows is ultimately a slave to the civil court system, with all of its inherent flaws (such as claims without merit being able to cost you thousands of dollars that you cannot recoup). It is in the best interest of large hosting companies, datacenters, and UGC sites to shy away from anything that remotely smells of liability because the costs can instantly far exceed the revenues from small customers due to the flaws of the US legal system. Many other civil systems use a “loser pays” model for funding lawyers, but if you get sued in the US and win, you still have to pay for your own lawyers unless you countersue (and your opponent is collectible). This opens up a very obvious denial of service attack.

neilv 2y ago
In this case, doesn't the injustice work for Alphabet (not that that's just)? Can't they just establish a "we will not negotiate with terrorists" kind of reputation, and when they see abusive misuse of DMCA, then the abuser is facing very deep pockets of Alphabet, who is motivated to make a lesson of them?
- slavik81 2y ago
  Google's current approach to copyright on YouTube was adopted following their settlement agreement with Viacom [1]. While the terms were never disclosed, that settlement probably constrains how Google can handle copyright policing on YouTube. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_International_Inc._v._YouTube,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_International_Inc._v._Y....

colonelpopcorn 2y ago

I agree, but the incentives for Alphabet to encourage content like this isn't there. The content that is encouraged is that which keeps eyeballs glued to YouTube.