Quote:
Originally Posted by RawAlex
The issue of the Viacom lawsuit isn't a debate as to the speed that Google / Yourtube reacts to remove when notified, but that the same videos re-appear within minutes, which makes the notification process useless. If you are going to delete a video and then allow your members to re-add it right after, you may have fulfilled the letter of the law, but you are dodging the intent of the law, which is to stop copyright violations.
|
This is how youtube will respond:
Nobody can govern how their software is used.
Therefore, the person at fault is the one who uploads or downloads files illegally, not the person who wrote the software. Basically the P2P defense which has already seen time in court.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RawAlex
The very nature of Youtube and other "social sharing" networks flies directly into the face of copyright law, and they really don't have a leg to stand on. Your "parody / commentary" concept doesn't fly, because the intent of posting is to share copyrighted material, not to comment on it. The comments are not an integral part of the youtube experience (because the content can be used in places such as blogs without those comments being visible).
|
Again youtube will pass the buck of intent to the users and claim that they have termed users, complied by providing info. on users who violate to FOX and other companies to sue individuals. Parody / commentary is not a just a concept I have, it's a "fair use" exemption to (U.S.) copyright law. But after reading you comments I do agree that it's not a very strong endgame defense for youtube in this case.