5 ms·

What precise process do you suggest to tell them apart at Google scale? That's the crux of the matter.

b112 9mo ago
It is not the crux!! Large companies don't get to say they're too big, so therefore it is hard. Too damned bad! They can take advantage of scale, but not at the cost of breaking the law, or just doing their job improperly. If it makes service at scale difficult, well that's just too bad. Sucks to be them. Maybe a competitor will do better. No excuses because "oh poor widdle me, I'm too big"
- TuringTest 9mo ago
  Who is going to stop them when they do the current shenanigans, and how are they going to enforce it?
  - samat 9mo ago
    Legal system supposed to… Too bad it’s working only for the powerful. Marx was right about some things…
jbstack 9mo ago
Why does scale matter? If I have 100 customers and I have to spend 1 hour a week dealing with legal compliance requests then if I have 200 customers I have to spend 2 hours a week dealing with legal compliance requests, but I also have more resources to do it with. In fact, scale usually makes it easier rather than harder because you can take advantage of economies of scale to streamline the process. And, in the end, if you aren't able to comply with the law then you shouldn't be in that business regardless of your scale.
- SR2Z 9mo ago
  The only way to guarantee compliance with the DMCA is to remove any content the moment a complaint is submitted. Copyright can only be determined in court. The fact that not all copyright complaints lead to a video going down is because Google is willing to take on some liability when they believe a complaint is not legit, and leave the video up.
  - jbstack 9mo ago
    I'm not sure how this is a reply to my comment. What you said applies whether you are hosting 1 video a month or 1,000,000 videos a month. My point was that scale isn't an excuse. What applies to large applies to small and vice versa.
    - SR2Z 9mo ago
      The point is that regardless of the size of the company, copyright is such a shitshow that there are only less bad ways of handling it. The only way for a company to guarantee that they never violate copyright law is to do a takedown every time there is a complaint. Obviously, this is not something they can do, because offering random people the ability to take down random videos with only the courts as recourse would be a disaster. Neither do these companies want to be in the business of deciding if a complaint is valid or not, because if they decide one way and then a judge decides the other, they get screwed. Google tries to take a measured stance and evaluate complaints for obvious issues, but otherwise they do generally just act on them, and if the other parties involved can't agree on whether or not there is infringement, they just throw their hands up and tell them to take it to court. Copyright is so complicated and fraught that it's virtually impossible to manage it in a way that satisfies everyone, regardless of how big or small a player is.
      - jbstack 9mo ago
        That's not the debate we're having here. See the comment I originally replied to: > What precise process do you suggest to tell them apart at Google scale? The suggestion is that scale makes a difference. I was refuting that.
- TuringTest 9mo ago
  > And, in the end, if you aren't able to comply with the law then you shouldn't be in that business regardless of your scale. Again, you're talking from a moral standpoint, but it's not practical. Who's going to stop Google or other corporations from tracking DMCAs the current way? > Why does scale matter? Because of resources. Any defined process needs resources to be implemented; law enforcement is no different. Google provides services at scale by means of automating the shit of them. The only way to identify legit from fake claims at that level is to also create an automated resolution process, with the results we see. You may want to limit Google size by forcing them to perform human reviews for all their customer service interactions; but again, how are you going to force them into compliance? You'd need a US judiciary system the size of Google to do it.
  - jbstack 9mo ago
    > You may want to limit Google size by forcing them to perform human reviews for all their customer service interactions You've inferred that, but I didn't make this claim. A sensible strategy would involve automating as much as possible while allowing for the ones that matter (e.g. OP's example) to be escalated. Clearly you can't do that if, as in OP's case, you don't even perform any automated ID checks before telling the complainant that their ID hasn't been verified. > Again, you're talking from a moral standpoint Not at all. I'm taking the legal standpoint. I say nothing about whether this particular law, or any other law, is moral or not. Complying with the law is a basic requirement that any company has to satisfy. Why should Google be any different just because it's big? You seem to be suggesting that laws should only apply to small entities and that once you go above a certain scale, you are above the law. Again, if you simply cannot comply with the law for some reason (as you seem to be suggesting applies to Google) then you shouldn't be running that business at all because, after all, doing so implies doing something illegal.
- kazinator 9mo ago
  If you have 100 customers, they are all authentic. If you have 100,000,000 customers, 15,000,000 are bad actors racking their brains on how to game your system.
  - deleted 9mo ago
    [deleted]

b112 9mo ago

It is not the crux!! Large companies don't get to say they're too big, so therefore it is hard. Too damned bad! They can take advantage of scale, but not at the cost of breaking the law, or just doing their job improperly. If it makes service at scale difficult, well that's just too bad. Sucks to be them. Maybe a competitor will do better. No excuses because "oh poor widdle me, I'm too big"

TuringTest 9mo ago
Who is going to stop them when they do the current shenanigans, and how are they going to enforce it?
- samat 9mo ago
  Legal system supposed to… Too bad it’s working only for the powerful. Marx was right about some things…

jbstack 9mo ago

Why does scale matter? If I have 100 customers and I have to spend 1 hour a week dealing with legal compliance requests then if I have 200 customers I have to spend 2 hours a week dealing with legal compliance requests, but I also have more resources to do it with. In fact, scale usually makes it easier rather than harder because you can take advantage of economies of scale to streamline the process. And, in the end, if you aren't able to comply with the law then you shouldn't be in that business regardless of your scale.

SR2Z 9mo ago
The only way to guarantee compliance with the DMCA is to remove any content the moment a complaint is submitted. Copyright can only be determined in court. The fact that not all copyright complaints lead to a video going down is because Google is willing to take on some liability when they believe a complaint is not legit, and leave the video up.
- jbstack 9mo ago
  I'm not sure how this is a reply to my comment. What you said applies whether you are hosting 1 video a month or 1,000,000 videos a month. My point was that scale isn't an excuse. What applies to large applies to small and vice versa.
  - SR2Z 9mo ago
    The point is that regardless of the size of the company, copyright is such a shitshow that there are only less bad ways of handling it. The only way for a company to guarantee that they never violate copyright law is to do a takedown every time there is a complaint. Obviously, this is not something they can do, because offering random people the ability to take down random videos with only the courts as recourse would be a disaster. Neither do these companies want to be in the business of deciding if a complaint is valid or not, because if they decide one way and then a judge decides the other, they get screwed. Google tries to take a measured stance and evaluate complaints for obvious issues, but otherwise they do generally just act on them, and if the other parties involved can't agree on whether or not there is infringement, they just throw their hands up and tell them to take it to court. Copyright is so complicated and fraught that it's virtually impossible to manage it in a way that satisfies everyone, regardless of how big or small a player is.
    - jbstack 9mo ago
      That's not the debate we're having here. See the comment I originally replied to: > What precise process do you suggest to tell them apart at Google scale? The suggestion is that scale makes a difference. I was refuting that.
TuringTest 9mo ago
> And, in the end, if you aren't able to comply with the law then you shouldn't be in that business regardless of your scale. Again, you're talking from a moral standpoint, but it's not practical. Who's going to stop Google or other corporations from tracking DMCAs the current way? > Why does scale matter? Because of resources. Any defined process needs resources to be implemented; law enforcement is no different. Google provides services at scale by means of automating the shit of them. The only way to identify legit from fake claims at that level is to also create an automated resolution process, with the results we see. You may want to limit Google size by forcing them to perform human reviews for all their customer service interactions; but again, how are you going to force them into compliance? You'd need a US judiciary system the size of Google to do it.
- jbstack 9mo ago
  > You may want to limit Google size by forcing them to perform human reviews for all their customer service interactions You've inferred that, but I didn't make this claim. A sensible strategy would involve automating as much as possible while allowing for the ones that matter (e.g. OP's example) to be escalated. Clearly you can't do that if, as in OP's case, you don't even perform any automated ID checks before telling the complainant that their ID hasn't been verified. > Again, you're talking from a moral standpoint Not at all. I'm taking the legal standpoint. I say nothing about whether this particular law, or any other law, is moral or not. Complying with the law is a basic requirement that any company has to satisfy. Why should Google be any different just because it's big? You seem to be suggesting that laws should only apply to small entities and that once you go above a certain scale, you are above the law. Again, if you simply cannot comply with the law for some reason (as you seem to be suggesting applies to Google) then you shouldn't be running that business at all because, after all, doing so implies doing something illegal.
kazinator 9mo ago
If you have 100 customers, they are all authentic. If you have 100,000,000 customers, 15,000,000 are bad actors racking their brains on how to game your system.
- deleted 9mo ago
  [deleted]