Personal View site logo
Make sure to join PV on Telegram or Facebook! Perfect to keep up with community on your smartphone.
Please, support PV!
It allows to keep PV going, with more focus towards AI, but keeping be one of the few truly independent places.
Copyright: Youtube may be held liable for infringing content
  • eatstoomuchjameatstoomuchjam

    This could be pretty ground-shaking for youtube - and it's likely that their response will in some way come at the expense of smaller channels, similar to their responses to a number of other things in the past.

    However, the Commercial Court disagreed, noting that YouTube takes several motivated actions to organize and optimize how videos are displayed. By doing so, it becomes more than a neutral hosting provider.

    “Through the connections, sorting, filtering and linking, in particular by creating tables of contents according to predefined categories, determining the surfing behavior of users and creating a tailor-made surfing proposal, offering help etc, YouTube leaves on the role of a neutral intermediary and therefore cannot claim the host provider privilege,” the Court declared.

    As a consequence, YouTube will have to take measures to ensure that no copyright-infringing videos are uploaded in the future. This sounds a lot like the upload filters which are part of the EU’s planned copyright reform.

    https://torrentfreak.com/youtube-can-be-liable-for-copyright-infringing-videos-court-rules-180607/

  • 4 Replies sorted by
  • Vitaliy_KiselevVitaliy_Kiselev

    For me it seems like they just need a reason to add video recognition "AI" .

    And under "they" I mean ruling class.

    As next stage will be automatic delisting of any video "AI" won't like.
    Want to share any protests video? Any complains about economics?
    Well, it'll be flagged and put for two weeks of manual review.

  • eatstoomuchjameatstoomuchjam

    2 weeks for manual review from a youtube employee would be a huge improvement.

    Under the current content id system, the rights holder has up to 30 days to review the video if you object to their claim and they have the option at that point to just delete your video. If you "appeal" that decision, the copyright holder has 30 days to respond which they can respond to (again) with a request for immediate removal (or scheduled takedown). At no point in that process does it mention that youtube will get involved. You are entirely at the mercy of the party they believe to be a copyright holder.

    So in your scenario, it would be flagged and then probably just summarily removed with little/no option to appeal the decision. Some copyrighted music is playing in the background at the protest for even a small portion of the video? Removed.

    https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797454

  • DrDaveDrDave

    Bad ruling because it is bad for everyone. The copyright trolls already get a big piece of the pie, in many cases getting ad revenue for stuff they don't own. Just keep expanding the market and everyone will benefit.

  • Vitaliy_KiselevVitaliy_Kiselev

    Just keep expanding the market and everyone will benefit.

    "Market" and "everyone will benefit" are two opposite things.

Add a Comment