3 ms·

How does this make sense when zero percent of uploaded youtube videos are owned by the creators? It’s not like they are paintings loaned to an art gallery, whe

How does this make sense when zero percent of uploaded youtube videos are owned by the creators? It’s not like they are paintings loaned to an art gallery, where the gallery might have some obligations to preserve, return, etc. From what I understand there’s no liability even if the board of directors decide to shut down Youthbe tomorrow and permanently delete every uploaded video.

scotty79 2y ago
> How does this make sense when zero percent of uploaded youtube videos are owned by the creators? Says who and why should citizens of democratic countries listen to them? YouTube is a staple. If you reach this size, there are gonna be some rules. At least there should be. > From what I understand there’s no liability even if the board of directors decide to shut down Youthbe tomorrow and permanently delete every uploaded video. They are welcomed to do that. But deciding to refuse service on arbitrary grounds to one client is something they shouldn't be allowed to do. Otherwise why not ban people because they are Jewish or gay or just at random to sow fear? When you offer your services to the public then you shouldn't be allowed to refuse service to any member of the public without a very good and specific reason.
- MichaelZuo 2y ago
  But even new legislation, assuming it can be rammed through Congress within your lifetime, can’t retroactively apply to uploaded videos which already were copied in fact…?
  - scotty79 2y ago
    I thought the point was about how easily one can feel rage about this not if the situation can realistically be improved in any way.
    - MichaelZuo 2y ago
      How does this matter? The prior comment wasn’t posted randomly in some arbitrary location. It was in response to a specific comment in a specific location.
      - scotty79 2y ago
        And I was refering to specific phrase of it. Namely: > but it's always hard to share the outrage in this situation
        MichaelZuo 2y ago
        Okay… so how does it matter in relation to the prior two comments?
        scotty79 2y ago
        At this point I have no idea, so have a nice day. ;-)

scotty79 2y ago

> How does this make sense when zero percent of uploaded youtube videos are owned by the creators? Says who and why should citizens of democratic countries listen to them? YouTube is a staple. If you reach this size, there are gonna be some rules. At least there should be. > From what I understand there’s no liability even if the board of directors decide to shut down Youthbe tomorrow and permanently delete every uploaded video. They are welcomed to do that. But deciding to refuse service on arbitrary grounds to one client is something they shouldn't be allowed to do. Otherwise why not ban people because they are Jewish or gay or just at random to sow fear? When you offer your services to the public then you shouldn't be allowed to refuse service to any member of the public without a very good and specific reason.

MichaelZuo 2y ago
But even new legislation, assuming it can be rammed through Congress within your lifetime, can’t retroactively apply to uploaded videos which already were copied in fact…?
- scotty79 2y ago
  I thought the point was about how easily one can feel rage about this not if the situation can realistically be improved in any way.
  - MichaelZuo 2y ago
    How does this matter? The prior comment wasn’t posted randomly in some arbitrary location. It was in response to a specific comment in a specific location.
    - scotty79 2y ago
      And I was refering to specific phrase of it. Namely: > but it's always hard to share the outrage in this situation
      - MichaelZuo 2y ago
        Okay… so how does it matter in relation to the prior two comments?
        scotty79 2y ago
        At this point I have no idea, so have a nice day. ;-)