> > A willingness to technically foreclose fair use with content filtering
software shielded Google/YouTube from liability -- but it caused widespread confusion and frustration among users. I'm relatively ignorant on this, but isn't Google/YouTube not required by law to filter content? Don't they do so to appease studios that might be willing to partner with them formally? So, it wasn't the willingness to filter that won the case for them, but the DMCA which recognizes the inability to monitor, effectively, either through humans or algorithms, UGC, right? On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 3:06 PM, Kevin Driscoll <[email protected]>wrote: > > Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 19:11:34 -0400 > > From: Adi Kamdar <[email protected]> > > Subject: [FC-discuss] Judge Sides with Google in Viacom Case > > > > https://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/24/technology/24google.html?hp > > > > tl;dr: Judge said Google has "safe harbor" protections, so Viacom can't > sue > > for their stuff being uploaded. Viacom plans on appealing. > > > > I have mixed feelings over this result. I am happy to see a ridiculous > claim thrown out but I can't forget the costs that were incurred to > maintain that YouTube's "safe harbor" status. > > A willingness to technically foreclose fair use with content filtering > software shielded Google/YouTube from liability -- but it caused > widespread confusion and frustration among users. > > AFAIK, content-filtering software is a crude tool that cannot > differentiate remix, criticism, parody, or academic uses from > copyright infringement. > > I deeply appreciate the steps that YouTube has made over the past year > to integrate tools that help users resist intimidating > cease-and-desist notices (e.g. a Chilling Effects-style DMCA > Counter-Notice form) but the present situation still satisfies the > interests of a select few "content owners" at the expense of popular > participatory culture. > > Popular culture on the internet absolutely will continue to flourish, > startle, and inspire - bad policy can't stop it - but it hurts to see > rich potential stymied by FUD ... only to be declared legal years > later. > > Kevin > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > FAQ: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss > -- Kevin Donovan Georgetown '11: SFS 630.849.8285
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss FAQ: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss
