3 ms·
I agree with you, but the problem the parent poster is pointing out, is that YouTube is a private site. Google should be able to do what they want. If they do s
by vibrunazo 14y ago
I agree with you, but the problem the parent poster is pointing out, is that YouTube is a private site. Google should be able to do what they want. If they do something stupid (and I agree the copyright bot is stupid), then it's their own problem. In theory, a competitor could do a better job at not repeating goggle's mistakes, and beat them in the market.
It's worth mentioning that copyright bots are not even required by law. Google could be complying to dmca requests without automatic take downs. They're going beyond what the law requires because they want to be in Hollywood's good side. So a competitor could still be legal without the bots.
- ubernostrum 14y ago"Google is a private company" is not a set of magic words. See my other comment for a simple scenario that shows why: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4497393 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4497393
- Natsu 14y agoBTW, there probably are some viable claims someone could make against a person convincing third parties to remove their work from the internet, particularly if they could show financial harm. However, recordings of natural bird song and the like are unlikely to get protected via expensive lawsuits because the upside of that is incredibly limited. I suppose we might see litigation whenever DMCA notices start getting used for election-related hijinks, though.