moTi - 6:24 pm on Jun 24, 2010 (gmt 0) [edited by: moTi at 6:38 pm (utc) on Jun 24, 2010]
Demaestro, great, that you defend youtube's business case with such an empathy. i for one don't see the point in worrying about problems a website like youtube has. instead i care about my own stuff. it is not my problem if a company can't handle the amount of user submissions.
but i know that i - most probably like anyone else here on this forum - have to check my website content in order to avoid legal trouble - because i as the website owner am responsible for content shown on my website. it's current jurisdiction if you didn't know. even in the u.s., i think.
"safe harbor" only applies to hosts. google knows, that presenting youtube as a hosting platform is the only way out of responsibility. but in fact they are no host. they are a commercial publisher like you and me.
what if you did the same thing, let "users" upload copyrighted content onto your platform. you think "save harbor" would apply to you as well? if not, where's the difference? you really think volume is an argument and those market players who can't handle it for whatever reason deserve lax treatment? that's insane.
did it ever come to your mind that a business model like youtube is flawed from the start? if your only chance to get along is by legal tricks (in this case labeling as "hosting service"), there's something seriously wrong with your operation (or the legal ruling for that matter) in the first place.
Youtube shutting down would be horrible for original content creators.
indeed, life would be worthless without youtube. geez..
[edited by: moTi at 6:38 pm (utc) on Jun 24, 2010]