> Neither your hypothetical Youtube lawsuit nor the itch.io takedown have any lawful basis.
[max_anger]
THE YT LAWSUIT ALREADY HAPPENED: VIACOM VS YOUTUBE.
THE REVERSAL AT THE CIRCUIT COURT IN *VIACOM'S FAVOR* IS WHAT'S LED TO ALL OF THIS NONSENSE RIGHT NOW.
AND IT WILL HAPPEN AGAIN IF YOUTUBE *EVER* BECOMES LAX WITH COPYRIGHT ENFORCEMENT.
[/max_anger]
The current expectation is that platforms *do* have to preemptively take down the offending content, or risk losing their Safe Harbor status. This defaults ANY platform's stance to be overly cautious about what is submitted, when they shouldn't even be doing the prosecution's job AT ALL.
> Thus your argument is that if Youtube doesn't bow to the bullies then the bullies might be mean.
The bullies ARE mean, and their current weapons of use are the holes in the Safe Harbor clause to take down platforms.
> That is quite different from Youtube not being able to stand up to those bullies.
YouTube CAN'T stand up to them, because ANY laxer enforcement risks losing their Safe Harbor protections.
To reiterate my point: Safe Harbor needs to be made BULLETPROOF for YouTube to begin to relax their current stance.
Maybe calming down will allow you to think more rationally.
> The current expectation is...
You expectation perhaps. Not the expectation of the law. The DMCA is clear on what service providers have to do and Youtube regularly does much more than they need.
> The bullies ARE mean, and their current weapons of use are the holes in the Safe Harbor clause to take down platforms.
So you want to preemptively surrender moderation to them? Might as well let them try taking it down.
> YouTube CAN'T stand up to them, because ANY laxer enforcement risks losing their Safe Harbor protections.
And living risks death. No company is without risks. Standing up to obviously frivolous takedown requests is a very small risk.
Maybe calming down won’t help rationality, as evidenced by your reply.
> Not the expectation of the law. The DMCA is clear on what service providers have to do
Their entire point is that Youtube already tried this, and that was found insufficient in court. So I’m sorry but your personally preferred reading of the DMCA means zilch.
> Their entire point is that Youtube already tried this, and that was found insufficient in court. So I’m sorry but your personally preferred reading of the DMCA means zilch.
YES. THANK YOU.
People should get it through their thick skulls that the *successful* appeal by Viacom is what caused this nightmare DMCA enforcement to be shoved down onto regular people. If the appeal had failed, YouTube wouldn't need to be this strict in their enforcement.
Viacom would've continued to appeal to the Supreme Court, but a straight line of failed appeals would have given YouTube much more leeway in how they handle DMCA Takedown requests. HOWEVER, *because* of the *successful* appeal, they HAD to be stricter to keep the law on their side.
All the idealism in the world is USELESS when it comes time to be in the courtroom. YouTube would've been SHUT DOWN if they had continued to be lax in their enforcement, and we would've NEVER had the video creator boom that we did have because YT continued to survive.
Missing the forest for the trees, GP (account42) did.
[max_anger]
THE YT LAWSUIT ALREADY HAPPENED: VIACOM VS YOUTUBE.
THE REVERSAL AT THE CIRCUIT COURT IN *VIACOM'S FAVOR* IS WHAT'S LED TO ALL OF THIS NONSENSE RIGHT NOW.
AND IT WILL HAPPEN AGAIN IF YOUTUBE *EVER* BECOMES LAX WITH COPYRIGHT ENFORCEMENT.
[/max_anger]
The current expectation is that platforms *do* have to preemptively take down the offending content, or risk losing their Safe Harbor status. This defaults ANY platform's stance to be overly cautious about what is submitted, when they shouldn't even be doing the prosecution's job AT ALL.
> Thus your argument is that if Youtube doesn't bow to the bullies then the bullies might be mean.
The bullies ARE mean, and their current weapons of use are the holes in the Safe Harbor clause to take down platforms.
> That is quite different from Youtube not being able to stand up to those bullies.
YouTube CAN'T stand up to them, because ANY laxer enforcement risks losing their Safe Harbor protections.
To reiterate my point: Safe Harbor needs to be made BULLETPROOF for YouTube to begin to relax their current stance.