-- Google Finance, Govt, Policy and Business Issues
---- Judge rules in favor of YouTube over Viacom
StoutFiles - 5:35 am on Jun 24, 2010 (gmt 0)
One who downloads a video and/or audio from Youtube does so using circumvention and does it outside the normal operation and allowed use of Youtube. They should be gone after to. After all they are the "thieves" making unpaid copies of music and shows for themselves and storing it on their hard drives. That is making an illegal copy.
How do you propose Youtube tracks this information?
This is a horrible advice, first the money it takes to host and stream all that data has Youtube losing money not making it, so this is not a good model to "easily make money"
Who says it has to be limited to videos? It can be ANYTHING, as long as users are uploading it and I'm not inspecting it.
Second you cannot "have" users upload content to which they don't hold the copyright to because then it wouldn't be content outside your control. If you are directing people to upload things they shouldn't be. You would lose your protection.
I won't be directing them, I'd just be giving them the option. Just like Youtube.
Imagine yourself as a copyright holder for a great video. You think it's annoying constantly filing take down notices for your content on YouTube? Now try that stretched over hundreds of cloned sites. How is this fair again?
What if I made a site about fanfiction but people were also uploading real books? Couldn't the site be run just like YouTube, but as a pdf viewer instead? The question is, what is stopping anyone from making a site just like YouTube and running it just like YouTube? There are no more repercussions if you don't check the content uploaded, people WILL take advantage of this.