And yet, the porn spam bot here on the Ploos can run rampant with no repercussions:

And yet, the porn spam bot here on the Ploos can run rampant with no repercussions:

“This bill jeopardizes not only classified ads sites but also dating apps, discussion forums, social media sites, and any other service that hosts user-generated content,” said Emma Llansó of the Center for Democracy & Technology in a public statement opposing the bill. “Smaller platforms will also face the real risk that a single lawsuit could put them out of business.”

Originally shared by Sarah Rios

FYI, this is why Tumblr et al are freaking out and suddenly banning things.
https://www.vox.com/culture/2018/4/13/17172762/fosta-sesta-backpage-230-internet-freedom

Comments

Every time a piece of legislation is labeled as "threatening the internet as we know it" I'm immediately skeptical.

Looking at the biggest supporters of the CDT (that you quoted) cdt.org - Financials - Center for Democracy & Technology confirmes it - Google, Facebook, Silicon Valley.

They can shove THEIR internet as THEY have it right now up their ass - they had their get-out-of-jail-free cards dealt by policymakers far too long already. Zero responsibility because "it's all user-uploaded content!" but at the same time they make BILLIONS with it. Fuck that.
Jason ON said…
Alexander S. Kunz unless you're willing to host your own server, this means ALL user-generated content is subject to review and editorial control by services that host for you, whether they be Facebook and Google, Wordpress and Twitter, Flickr and Xanga, or anywhere else. This is a step backwards for the internet and free speech.
Jason ON It's not the rocket science these platforms make you want to believe when it's against the money they make from others creations. Content ID works. Reverse image search works. Copyright infringement isn't free speech, and profiting off of it isn't either. The existing systems just don't work (the DMCA is a complete joke).
Jason ON said…
If they're sharing or otherwise using your content for their own profit you shouldn't be using their site to begin with. Which is why I don't post images to Facebook.
Jason ON Google is no different. YouTube profits massively from copyright infringement, which means Google (Alphabet) profits from it.
Jason ON said…
How? How does Google (YT, et al) use your content to make money? Are they selling it? Copying it?

Sure, they offer ads, but have you or anyone you know ever had their images, videos or print stolen by Google and sold?
Duh, it's not Google or YT themselves, of course. There's always someone who creates a beautiful "slideshow" with some of my photos, to go along with music (the music itself may also be a copyright infringement, of course). YouTube shows ads, YouTube makes money. I send a DMCA report, the infringer sends a counternotice, YouTube leaves the content there ("we're out of it! It's up to the courts to decide now!") and keeps profiting from it. Try to find a lawyer who takes a case on contingency, over a single image or song from some frickin hobbyist.

To be clear: I have no problem with someone using my photo if they'd just ASK first. I do have a problem with YT profiting from it, indirectly. If they profit directly or indirectly from something that I created, then I'd like to get my share, please.

This way, MILLIONS of creators are being ripped off - and Facebook, YT etc. etc. are lining their pockets. Every minute, every day. I'm quite baffled that you're not even aware of this.
Jason ON said…
But, YT and Google themselves aren't actually stealing your content and using it to make money?

As for the relationship between YouTube, you and someone who pilfered your images, I have no idea. I know YouTube gives the option to challenge a user's videos, but I have no idea what criteria YT uses to determine if it's a copyright infringement.

And, there's always the possibility it falls under the Fair Use Doctrine, depending on how it's being used.
What difference does it make WHO actually steals the content and uploads it to YT? They make money off of stolen content.

And no, there is NOT "always the possibility" that it falls under fair use. The problem is: that can only be determined individually, in court. Which brings us back to...

Well, nevermind.
Jason ON said…
Yes there is that possibility and every content creator in the USA or doing business in the USA needs to accept that.

And, since you believe YT shouldn't sell ads on your content even when - especially when - someone else uploads it, you're okay with not being in search results, even when it's your own portfolio? Google makes money on that, too.
Jason ON It's not about YT/FB/GOOG/whoever NOT showing ads. They can do that. They need to get paid. But if THEY get paid, then so can the creators of the content that is uploaded without license. Why is that so hard to understand?

It's not like it's a zero sum game for them! They make a SHIT ton of money. on the backs of artists. And then look at what they do to protect THEIR intellectual property - patents, lawsuits, etc. etc. - but yes, ARTISTS need to "accept" that their intellectual property is being used without license, rights or compensation... wow, you're really wired the wrong way on this, Jason. Give artists a share. It's only fair.

(last reply on this thread)

Popular posts from this blog

So, I asked Andrew Tamm, who filled my Stream with a hundred (sarcasm there) animated gifs and cat pictures to...

I'm shutting down Google+ for the night and quite possibly for the weekend.