Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery
but the issue is not as cut and dry as people seem to make it here
first of all what if the employee in question did it on his own,
what if the employee action was fair use
The fact that employee did it for case 1 doesn't make them guilty for case 100-10,000.
if they were acting as just a standard youtube user at the time of the upload (ie uploading videos at lunch/break for what they believed/was the fair use of commentary-- look at quest crews best dance routine)
should that still be covered by DMCA.
there is a huge amount of grey area on youtube side of an employee uploading
conversely there is no similar level of grey area on the viacom side, because as i pointed out youtube could use how can we tell the difference arguement if they find a single authorized upload.
|
sure, there are a million questions. I am just pointing out the simple reality that from what I understand if it is found out that Youtube controls/monitors or manipulates content before it is posted then it could violate the DMCA safe harbor. As it is now they say they are acting as a "host only" and have no control over the content on the site. They say the content is strictly controlled by the users of the site. If it is found out that this isn't true and they do control the content or in some way manipulate the content before it is put up on the site then a person could argue that if they do that for one person or one movie they should be able to do that for everything.
In the end if they are shown to not be "just a host" they then have to be responsible for the content that is on their site. You can't have it both ways. You can't say you are "just a host" and that you have no control over the content of your site, while simultaneously controlling some of the content of your site.