[bsder]

> Google has 90% of the search market.

To me this is not the biggest issue. The biggest problem is YouTube.

YouTube is a ravenous black hole that you can't keep content out of--and that is ALL Google's fault. If I put a video online and I don't want it on YouTube and it winds up there, YouTube should have to pay a sufficient fine in a timely enough fashion such that it won't happen again.

Instead, Google banks on the fact that the small guys would have to expend so much money to fight Google that it isn't worth it. That's behavior that the Robber Barons of the Gilded Age would be quite familiar with.

[joshuamorton]

If you are the copyright holder, you can have them take it down.

But also what you're asking for is ridiculous. It's not reasonable to expect content aggregators/platforms to be able to conduct provenance investigations on all content.

Why should YouTube be liable when someone with a vendetta misuses their platform?

[bsder]

> It's not reasonable to expect content aggregators/platforms to be able to conduct provenance investigations on all content.

Why not? A mere mortal would have to get permission from me to derive a monetary benefit from my content. Why should we exempt Google from that?

People seem to have forgotten that it is not the job of the content creators to make sure that Google has a scalable business. If Google can't scale provenance clearance, then they should have to shut down general uploading.

YouTube is not a search engine and does not deserve the same protections.

> Why should YouTube be liable when someone with a vendetta misuses their platform?

Because Google has legal recourse against the person with the vendetta for recovery. You can also make situations like this eligible for exemption (but Google would have to prove it).

However, this kind of situation is BY FAR the exception. Far more common is someone uploading and monetizing content that is not theirs to do so.

[joshuamorton]

> Why not? A mere mortal would have to get permission from me to derive a monetary benefit from my content. Why should we exempt Google from that?

Right, but that mere mortal is the one defrauding Google.

> YouTube is not a search engine and does not deserve the same protections.

DMCA safe harbor doesn't apply specifically to search engines.

> Far more common is someone uploading and monetizing content that is not theirs to do so.

Yes, that's defrauding Google. The point is that Google shouldn't be liable for when someone defrauds them.

> Because Google has legal recourse against the person with the vendetta for recovery.

The problem here is that you're claiming that google should be liable for a painful enough fine that it won't happen again. If you're our for punitive damages against a billion dollar corporation, no, you can't, get recourse from an individual. Sure google could sue me for the value of the fine, but that doesn't mean I can pay.

[bsder]

> Yes, that's defrauding Google. The point is that Google shouldn't be liable for when someone defrauds them.

Except that Google is still defrauding me too. Google should not get to make money off of my content without my permission.

If Google were simply hosting the content and not serving ads, not taking paid subscriptions, etc. then your points that Google should not be liable for the behavior of the users holds a lot more water.

For example, YouTube could set the default that everybody can upload, but people can only monetize or serve ads on content after verification. Now, I still think YouTube would need to be disincentivized as it is still freeloading off the commons, but that's a very different problem, and YouTube is in a much more sympathetic position.

Now, would all of this kill YouTube? Quite possibly. However, once you prevent YouTube from freeloading, you might actually get a video service that has a business model that doesn't suck.

[chopin]

>It's not reasonable to expect content aggregators/platforms to be able to conduct provenance investigations on all content.

Why? It's content they have no license for right on their servers. It's a purely political decision for providing safe harbor. But there could be made legal arguments for doing not.

[joshuamorton]

Then make those arguments. Don't just say you can. HN is a much more interesting place if you do!

But as for why most of those legal arguments don't make sense: what you're suggesting is that if I defraud you, you're now partially liable for the damages from that fraud to third parties, even though you're one of the injured parties.

That's not how our legal system works.

[coryrc]

Even worse: what about when it ends up on Facebook Video and you never even know about it because you aren't in the right group?

disclaimer: my opinion, as always