moTi - 10:23 am on Sep 4, 2010 (gmt 0)
nevertheless there is a significant difference between the legal concepts:
- opt-out: turning individuals into a customer relationship without being asked
- youtube gets status as a service provider
- users are responsible for their uploaded content
- no need to delete questionable content from the platform until the rights owner or some other third party intervenes
- opt-in: no cold calling allowed
- youtube has status of a web publisher
- the website owner is responsible for the content on his property
- the website owner needs to check his content constantly and delete violations unrequested and on his own within a short time frame
a business model like youtube wouldn't have emerged in germany in the first place - it simply wouldn't have been possible. in other words: youtube is a service that owes the legislation in their home county their right to exist. street view and google books are other examples. all other providers with similar services have to thank google and the other big guys as the campaigners for the most part.
shoot first and then ask questions is google's prefered strategy for that matter and it's mostly successful as the legal systems are always way behind the technological progress in terms of answers to concrete legal questions in the internet business.