4 ms·

All of this outrage at Facebook doing what Youtube already did[1] is difficult to fathom. Don't get me wrong, Facebook is not a site I use, am affiliated with,

All of this outrage at Facebook doing what Youtube already did[1] is difficult to fathom. Don't get me wrong, Facebook is not a site I use, am affiliated with, condone, or recommend. But screaming bloody murder because they are doing to the site what that site did to others seems a bit of a stretch. If hating on Facebook needs to happen (probably does, BTW), how about it's done for reasons such as their laughable "Terms of Service"[2] and how it blatantly states they instantly own anything passing through them without any consideration? Now that's a bitterness I can get behind. 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_International_Inc._v._YouTube,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_International_Inc._v._Y.... 2 - https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms

maaarghk 11y ago
this isn't a case that can be framed in terms of Facebook stealing from YouTube. Just like when YouTube users stole from movie and music publishers, this is Facebook users stealing from YouTube "content creators". All this talk of "so what, YouTube did it too" for a start doesn't excuse the law but more to the point, it disguises the fact that YT arent the ones who are suffering from the consequences of this trend - publishers using it as a platform are. By bringing up Facebooks privacy policy you are adding nothing to the discussion of the culture of FB users stealing YouTube users' videos sans accreditation.
- AdieuToLogic 11y ago
  > Just like when YouTube users stole from movie and music publishers, this is Facebook users stealing from YouTube "content creators". My point exactly. > All this talk of "so what, YouTube did it too" ... I didn't say "so what." I said Youtube became the billion dollar acquisition it was by doing exactly what Facebook is doing to them. I believe the appropriate term is "Quid Pro Quo." > ... it disguises the fact that YT arent the ones who are suffering from the consequences of this trend - publishers using it as a platform are. Cannot the same thing be said to the people employed by content producers such as Viacom et al? When Youtube used the same "we'll take this stuff down, but drag our heels doing it" tactics Facebook is doing now, were not real artists impacted? How is "publishers using it as a platform" in any way different than "publishers using Viacom as a platform?" > By bringing up Facebooks privacy policy you are adding nothing to the discussion of the culture of FB users stealing YouTube users' videos sans accreditation. I brought up Facebook's "Terms of Service" because I find it repugnant. If you don't see it that way, so be it. If you are so ardently dedicated to this cause, why not follow the path of Metallica[1]? 1 - http://archive.wired.com/politics/law/news/2000/04/35670 http://archive.wired.com/politics/law/news/2000/04/35670
wodenokoto 11y ago
Back in the old YouTube days, people couldn't understand why big players wouldn't allow them to watch music videos on YouTube, when it was literally the only place to do so. There was no legal Netflix alternative, so people felt much more okay with watching shows there as well. Now it's the little guy not only getting hurt by two big players cooperating, there even is a well functioning alternative! I'm not saying this is different from a legal point of view, but for small content consumers it definitely feels different.
- AdieuToLogic 11y ago
  I get what you're saying. And I agree that any company which profits by the uncompensated works of others is wrong. My point is that there are many comments here which are along the lines of "string Facebook up on the nearest tree because they allow people to put stuff up which is owned by a content creator who published it on Youtube!!!" The logic being, as you imply, that the content creators on Youtube are not being compensated. And how is that different from Youtube profiting from their users ripping off content creators and putting it up on Youtube? My closing point was that I believe there are better reasons to take the pitchforks and torches out regarding Facebook.
forgottenpass 11y ago
All of this outrage at Facebook doing what Youtube already did[1] is difficult to fathom. A new entrant to a business domain will look to their more-established competitors to learn lessons of what works and doesn't. They may disagree and look to differentiate themselves on some of the points, but overall it would be silly to suggest otherwise. If this was a mistake that youtube made and facebook duplicated, people (especially stockholders) would have quite fathomable outrage at facebook. Youtube was the first huge name in the type of video delivery that they do, so their missteps have less "should have known better" attached. So, it depends on if Facebook doing "what Youtube already did" with regard to copyrighted material is duplicating their mistake, or if Facebook is engaging in an amoral "get away with it for as long as you can" situation. In either case the outrage makes quite a bit of sense.

maaarghk 11y ago

this isn't a case that can be framed in terms of Facebook stealing from YouTube. Just like when YouTube users stole from movie and music publishers, this is Facebook users stealing from YouTube "content creators". All this talk of "so what, YouTube did it too" for a start doesn't excuse the law but more to the point, it disguises the fact that YT arent the ones who are suffering from the consequences of this trend - publishers using it as a platform are. By bringing up Facebooks privacy policy you are adding nothing to the discussion of the culture of FB users stealing YouTube users' videos sans accreditation.

AdieuToLogic 11y ago
> Just like when YouTube users stole from movie and music publishers, this is Facebook users stealing from YouTube "content creators". My point exactly. > All this talk of "so what, YouTube did it too" ... I didn't say "so what." I said Youtube became the billion dollar acquisition it was by doing exactly what Facebook is doing to them. I believe the appropriate term is "Quid Pro Quo." > ... it disguises the fact that YT arent the ones who are suffering from the consequences of this trend - publishers using it as a platform are. Cannot the same thing be said to the people employed by content producers such as Viacom et al? When Youtube used the same "we'll take this stuff down, but drag our heels doing it" tactics Facebook is doing now, were not real artists impacted? How is "publishers using it as a platform" in any way different than "publishers using Viacom as a platform?" > By bringing up Facebooks privacy policy you are adding nothing to the discussion of the culture of FB users stealing YouTube users' videos sans accreditation. I brought up Facebook's "Terms of Service" because I find it repugnant. If you don't see it that way, so be it. If you are so ardently dedicated to this cause, why not follow the path of Metallica[1]? 1 - http://archive.wired.com/politics/law/news/2000/04/35670 http://archive.wired.com/politics/law/news/2000/04/35670

wodenokoto 11y ago

Back in the old YouTube days, people couldn't understand why big players wouldn't allow them to watch music videos on YouTube, when it was literally the only place to do so. There was no legal Netflix alternative, so people felt much more okay with watching shows there as well. Now it's the little guy not only getting hurt by two big players cooperating, there even is a well functioning alternative! I'm not saying this is different from a legal point of view, but for small content consumers it definitely feels different.

AdieuToLogic 11y ago
I get what you're saying. And I agree that any company which profits by the uncompensated works of others is wrong. My point is that there are many comments here which are along the lines of "string Facebook up on the nearest tree because they allow people to put stuff up which is owned by a content creator who published it on Youtube!!!" The logic being, as you imply, that the content creators on Youtube are not being compensated. And how is that different from Youtube profiting from their users ripping off content creators and putting it up on Youtube? My closing point was that I believe there are better reasons to take the pitchforks and torches out regarding Facebook.

forgottenpass 11y ago

All of this outrage at Facebook doing what Youtube already did[1] is difficult to fathom. A new entrant to a business domain will look to their more-established competitors to learn lessons of what works and doesn't. They may disagree and look to differentiate themselves on some of the points, but overall it would be silly to suggest otherwise. If this was a mistake that youtube made and facebook duplicated, people (especially stockholders) would have quite fathomable outrage at facebook. Youtube was the first huge name in the type of video delivery that they do, so their missteps have less "should have known better" attached. So, it depends on if Facebook doing "what Youtube already did" with regard to copyrighted material is duplicating their mistake, or if Facebook is engaging in an amoral "get away with it for as long as you can" situation. In either case the outrage makes quite a bit of sense.