Who Should Be Responsible for YouTube Content
|
{democracy:10}
|
YouTube has decided to implement some copyright filtering software this fall. This is all due to the number of legal actions that have been made against YouTube over the past number of months.
In my opinion, all of this comes down to who is responsible for the content that goes on YouTube. Really, there are three different people who could be shouldering the responsibility for the content, the video creator, the video poster, and YouTube.
I know who I think should be held responsible for this content but I want to know your opinion. So, vote on who you feel should be responsible for this content. If you want to say a bit more than just a vote, definitely at more in the comments.
Background Reading
- Copyright Filtering Coming To YouTube This Fall (Wired)
- YouTube Preps Video Fingerprinting (Washington Post)
- YouTube to Implement New Technology Against Copyright Infringement (FOX News)
- Google Plans YouTube Antipiracy Tool for September (PC World)
- For YouTube, a System to Halt Copyright-Infringing Videos (New York Times)
- Google plans YouTube antipiracy tool launch for September (TechSpot)
7 Responses to “Who Should Be Responsible for YouTube Content”
-
Steven Says:
July 30th, 2007 at 1:07 pmUnfortunately, this question is already “solved” by the DMCA. In order to keep the hosting provider from being liable, the DMCA says that the provider has to take down the violating item if someone claims that it infringes on the copyright. They don’t need any proof of infringement, just the accusation. The item poster can counter-claim, and the provider can reinstate it.
This has a lot of potential for abuse (i.e. I don’t like what a person says, so I maliciously claim DMCA infringement on that person’s website to they hosting provider, and they are required to take it down as a CYA). Bad.
See here for example.
-
Nate Says:
July 30th, 2007 at 1:53 pmI don’t know how a site like Youtube can continue to exist if it bears all the responsibility for that content. It seems an unreasonable burden to put on a company like that, in light of the sheer volume of content that is being uploaded at a given time. I hope Youtube doesn’t go the way of Napster. It is unfortunate that copyright holders have used their wealth to lobby for laws that treat every web site as if it were a television or radio station. The fact is that most sites just don’t have the money to pay for content in the same way as those traditional content providers, and I don’t think there is enough harm being done to justify these laws. Most of the copyrighted stuff I have seen on Youtube has been short clips from shows like Family Guy, and it seems to work more like free marketing for those shows. I do agree that people should not be allowed to post entire episodes for public consumption with no royalties for the copyright holders, but excerpts should be allowed, simply because they do no harm.
I haven’t been paying much attention to the internet radio thing, but I really hope the new royalty laws don’t kill internet radio.
We need laws that take the nature of the internet into account instead of trying to apply outmoded paradigms to something that is completely different.
-
John May Says:
July 30th, 2007 at 3:04 pmIf somebody “hacked” your website and put a bunch of warez up there to share, should you be held responsible, I think not. Youtube is providing a service, they should not be held responsible for content.
-
Nate Says:
July 30th, 2007 at 3:37 pmJohn, that is an interesting analogy. It reminds me of disclaimers before infomercials on tv; “The following is a paid advertisement for XYZ SCAM. KTTV is not responsible for claims or representations made by the sponsor.”
Why should TV stations be allowed to disclaim responsibility for content, even when they know in advance what it will be, while website owners have no such protection, even when they can/do not review postings in advance?
-
Hazclan13 Says:
July 30th, 2007 at 3:40 pmI feel that as the in legal terms the videos although posted by other 3ed parties are still located on servers owned and managed by youtube and therefore they do have some responsibility. However to give them full responsibility is just stupid as they did not ask for the infringing videos and one could say they ‘dint’ know about them ether. I think them filtering for ‘illegal’ stuff is a good thing however i would prefer it if it was just when the copyright holder asks for it to be removed.
-
John May Says:
July 30th, 2007 at 5:08 pmT.V. stations can run that disclaimer because they don’t actually produce the content they are showing. It they did produce the content, then they couldn’t run the disclaimer, or at least not legally.
-
irby1962 Says:
September 6th, 2008 at 9:45 pmMy 13 year old daughter was ambushed after she was invited to a supposed birthday party and there was a kid there with a video camera just waiting to film it and put it on youtube. The attacker and her accomplices are all minors. Charges have been filed against the attacker and will be filed shortly against the accomplices. I joined youtube and flagged the video but it is still there. I think youtube should keep a better watch on their content. If minors can be attacked and humiliated on the internet with no one to be held responsible for the video being kept on for the world to see then there is something very wrong with the world today. Of course we have had no apology from the attacker or her father (no mother in the home). It has been on the San Antonio news and in the Austin American Statesman. Youtube may say they can’t monitor everything that gets posted on their site, but anything showing a minor being assaulted should be an exception. This horrible humiliation with stay with her for the rest of her life. She won’t go “No, I don’t remember being assaulted and humiliated on the worldwide web” when she’s forty. Youtube is just as responsible as the little monsters who did this.
