Linked by Eugenia Loli on Sat 27th Oct 2007 22:34 UTC, submitted by Kishe
Legal When her 0.29" family video was taken down by YouTube on the request of Universal MPG, the affected mother of two struck back with a lawsuit against Universal with the help of the EFF. While technically her family video might have been a copyright infringement as she had no license to include Prince's song as a background score, it is encouraging to see the public fighting back against restrictive laws that get in the way of their every day lives. My Take: I stated my own opinion on the matter on my personal blog.
Thread beginning with comment 281322
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: legal ramifications
by oma2la on Sun 28th Oct 2007 01:31 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: legal ramifications"
oma2la
Member since:
2005-07-05

On what basis do you suggest that YouTube should become the copyright police?

Nowhere did I suggest that YouTube should become the copyright police. I merely indicated that their right to decline to investigate the legality of the material they host contributes to their profits.

Otherwise, I broadly agree with your comments: this is a complex area.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[5]: legal ramifications
by butters on Sun 28th Oct 2007 02:04 in reply to "RE[4]: legal ramifications"
butters Member since:
2005-07-08

OK, I misunderstood the crux of your argument. Yes, YouTube profits by not going above and beyond their legal obligations. However, this is true of just about any business. You generally have to pay more for products that exceed minimum requirements, like free-range poultry or all-natural cleansers. I don't believe that advertisers are willing to pay more to place ads on a service that preemptively removes content.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[6]: legal ramifications
by oma2la on Sun 28th Oct 2007 02:21 in reply to "RE[5]: legal ramifications"
oma2la Member since:
2005-07-05

Sorry butters - I should have been clearer.

Reply Parent Score: 2