The entire concept of allowing anything other than "in-person" copyright claims is a terrible idea. Without an actual person certifying that they have viewed the content, found it to be objectionable, and that they have a reasonable legal claim to the material that is being infringed, you end up with WAAAAY too many false or shaky or unnecessary take-down claims. Also, in-person copyright claims ensures that a company only files as many complaints as the value of their products justifies. A company like Adobe will aggressively pursue fake/cracked copies of Photoshop because each copy is worth hundreds of dollars to them. A company like EA would be somewhat constrained though in the amount of resources it will dump into its legal department taking down YouTube videos because they aren't actually losing money on anything but their lawyers, and each individual claim is actually worth nothing to them. They would have to exercise judgment and only focus attention on the most egregious violations.
Escapist Podcast: 120: YouTube Copyright
- Thread starter The Escapist Staff
- Start date
I see the main problem here being Youtube. Most of the stuff in question would get off scot free under the protection of fair use. Incidentally, most of these examples are not technically illegal, since (a) they're legal under fair use and (b) something isn't illegal anyway until a judge rules that it's illegal.
Youtube's position, however, is that it doesn't even want to risk going to court (hence the removing of their responsibility to the networks). Thus removing all content before it even comes that far is its prerogative and it certainly doesn't have any legal obligation to be a protector of free speech.
But that's where Twitch becomes interesting. After all, it's simple economics that if one institution doesn't fulfill a social need, then another institution will rise up to take its place. So if Youtube won't be the safe harbour for the free speech of the everyman gamer, then Twitch might be a candidate to fulfill that role. That's a good thing not only in terms of this specific topic but also for the diversification of free-speech platforms in general, whereby Youtube loses part of its current monopoly over free speech on the internet.
Youtube's position, however, is that it doesn't even want to risk going to court (hence the removing of their responsibility to the networks). Thus removing all content before it even comes that far is its prerogative and it certainly doesn't have any legal obligation to be a protector of free speech.
But that's where Twitch becomes interesting. After all, it's simple economics that if one institution doesn't fulfill a social need, then another institution will rise up to take its place. So if Youtube won't be the safe harbour for the free speech of the everyman gamer, then Twitch might be a candidate to fulfill that role. That's a good thing not only in terms of this specific topic but also for the diversification of free-speech platforms in general, whereby Youtube loses part of its current monopoly over free speech on the internet.
With Susan gone I feel it is improper to keep calling it a podcat in the icon. Also, I guess without her some kind of dynamic is missing since I've not watched any podcasts except one ever since she left (I didn't watch this one either, I just post this here since it's the last one)
Can you like, comission her to come and make the podcasts fun again?
Can you like, comission her to come and make the podcasts fun again?