[kibwen]

> I believe under so many seconds doesn’t count under copyright infringement laws

Careful here. This appears to be referring to the concept of fair use, but firstly there are multiple criteria used to judge fair use (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#U.S._fair_use_factors), secondly these criteria are (intentionally) subjective and up to a judge's interpretation, and thirdly fair use is US-only.

[ryanplant-au]

The term fair use is US-only but many nations have similar concepts or concepts that overlap with it. Australia's 'fair dealing' policy allows for the use of copyrighted material without seeking approval if its purpose is in satire, research, reviewing, media criticism, or news reporting, for example. What's notable there is that length or amount used aren't as important, which has some positive effects but also some important negative ones (it would not be possible to create Google in Australia because taking the summary snippets and image thumbnails has no legal justification). Interestingly in the last big debate over loosening Australian copyright law and adopting broader fair use, the American MPAA was the biggest funder of opposition efforts.

[wyager]

> thirdly fair use is US-only.

That seems fine. In the interest of their userbase, companies should aim for the least copyright-damaged user experience possible; this means picking a single country (ideally one with liberal copyright law) and ignoring copyright law in other countries they aren’t based out of. If countries want to force their censorship standards, they can at least be honest about it and block the website (rather than silently deflecting the responsibility of censorship to the website itself).