There is no clear legal answer to that question, although in my cyberlaw class a year or so ago I took the position in a research paper that recent court decisions have *in effect* required services to adopt filtering practices (else they faced increased risk to claims of secondary liability for infringement).
I should probably go into more detail but I'd have to go back and read my own paper :) On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 12:11 PM, Kevin Donovan <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > -- Alex Kozak Program Assistant Creative Commons
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss FAQ: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss
