Well they might have a point.

A recall that 18months ago in the wake of bad publicity Google vowed to do something about.


https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jun/24/google-youtube-anti-isis-push-inhuman-beheading-videos-censorship

However it seems that once the bad publicity died down they went back to running ads for pressure cookers, semtex, and 9 inch nails along side those ISIS videos.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=google+isis+videos+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b&gfe_rd=cr&ei=r4ZZWPHfL4rc8AfgzqGQDg

As Justice Jackson said "The Constitution is not a suicide pact".


On 20/12/2016 16:36, Ariel Glenn WMF wrote:
The Communications Decency Act of 1996, Section 230, mentioned in Todd's email, is the subject of a recent lawsuit:
http://fortune.com/2016/12/20/orlando-shooting-google-facebook-twitter/


Ariel


On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 11:37 PM, Todd Allen <toddmal...@gmail.com <mailto:toddmal...@gmail.com>> wrote:

    What you posted there regards contract terms between the artist and
    Youtube. That's between them to fight out. If they don't like
    Youtube's
    terms, they can take their stuff elsewhere.

    DMCA safe harbor has nothing to do with contracts. It means that,
    if you
    run an interactive web site (essentially, anything where users are
    allowed
    to post stuff), you can't be held liable if one of your users posts
    copyrighted material. The user still can be, but you, as the site
    operator,
    cannot.

    In exchange, you must provide a way that a copyright holder can
    contact
    you, using a standard method, and tell you that they've found
    material that
    infringes their copyright. You must then take that material down
    (within a
    certain period, I think ten days) and provide notice to the user that
    you've done so. The user can then either file a "counter notice"
    if they
    believe the material is not infringing, which you'd send back to the
    copyright holder if they choose to do so, or drop it, in which
    case the
    material stays gone. If a counter notice is filed, the copyright
    holder can
    at that time either take the matter up in court directly with the
    user, or
    drop it. If they don't file in court after a counter notice, you can
    automatically reinstate the material after a certain period of
    time. If the
    DMCA notice was malicious or fraudulent, the safe harbor provision
    also
    establishes liability against the person or entity who filed it.
    But as
    long as you file those procedures, you, as the site operator, are
    immune
    from liability for either the material being present to start with
    or for
    it being taken down.

    Without that protection, no one in their right mind would operate an
    interactive web site, at least not in the US. It protects
    everything from
    classic car hobbyist forums operated by a few people at their own
    cost, to
    sites like Youtube and Facebook. None of those would be possible
    without
    it. Or, at the very least, they would have to be operated from
    countries
    which are, shall we say, much more lax on copyright enforcement.
    That's bad
    for everyone, including the copyright holders--they no longer
    would have an
    effective method of getting infringements taken down.

    Since Wikimedia is DMCA-compliant, that means that, say, AP or
    Getty can't
    sue Wikimedia if a user uploads a bunch of their images to
    Commons. They
    would have to find and sue that user. And of course, they could
    file DMCA
    requests to have their stuff removed. But since WMF is much easier
    to find
    and has much deeper pockets, if they had the option of suing WMF, I
    guarantee you that they would. The only thing that stops them from
    that is
    safe harbor.

    That, and Section 230 of the CDA (which excludes liability from site
    operators for other types of illegal conduct like threats) are,
    without
    exaggeration, the very reason that interactive web services can
    exist at
    all. Without those, you'd be accepting liability for anything a
    user of
    your site might choose to do. You'd have to be insane to do that.

    Todd

    On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Lilburne
    <lilbu...@tygers-of-wrath.net <mailto:lilbu...@tygers-of-wrath.net>>
    wrote:

    > On 19/12/2016 16:45, David Gerard wrote:
    >
    >> For various reasons * I follow music industry news. One drum
    the record
    >> industry has been beating *hard* in the past year is attempts
    to reduce
    >> the
    >> DMCA "safe harbor" provisions in order to squeeze more money
    from YouTube.
    >> It's been a running theme through 2016.
    >>
    >>
    > Oh dear! If this gets traction poor little Google, won't be able
    to run
    > their protection racket any longer. It is so worrying that a
    little cellist
    > might bring a $400 billion company to its knees.
    >
    > https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jan/27/zoe-keati
    <https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jan/27/zoe-keati>
    > ng-youtube-google-music
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > _______________________________________________
    > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
    https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
    > i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
    > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
    <mailto:Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
    > Unsubscribe:
    https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
    <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>,
    > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org
    <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org>?subject=unsubscribe>
    >
    _______________________________________________
    Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
    https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
    <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines>
    New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
    <mailto:Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
    Unsubscribe:
    https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
    <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>,
    <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org
    <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org>?subject=unsubscribe>



_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Reply via email to