193 upvotes, 10 direct replies (showing 10)
View submission: Let's talk content. AMA.
Anything illegal (i.e. things that are actually illegal, such as copyrighted material.
This is a huge mistake.
90% of content uploaded to imgur to be "rehosted" is infringing on copyrights. Isn't someone at reddit an investor in imgur btw?
Copyright infringement is handled via DMCA. If someone has a complaint the DMCA laws outline specific steps to take to remedy that and the person accused has a chance to respond in a clearly defined way.
In addition, removing copyright infringement at all is you, reddit, saying that you are going to moderate such content. Once you take this stance guess what? You are now actually liable for **all** infringing material on the entire site. That means you can (and will) get sued for real money. It will destroy reddit.
The DMCA is intended to protect service providers (reddit) because they **do not police for copyrighted content**. By moderating such content without legal notice (DMCA) you lose those protections.
Have fun with that I guess.
Since AMA I guess my question is how a company running a site like reddit can be so damn clueless on things that were hashed out ages ago?
Comment by [deleted] at 16/07/2015 at 22:16 UTC*
20 upvotes, 1 direct replies
[deleted]
Comment by Zebster10 at 17/07/2015 at 02:58 UTC
3 upvotes, 2 direct replies
Here's another fun thought: copyright is something that can be selectively enforced. A company can choose whether or not it wants to take down copyright-infringing content. Some companies choose to leave most of their reuploaded works on the 'net because it boosts their popularity and fandom (y'know ... the way piracy really works to benefit industries that most corporations choose to ignore). Copyright doesn't work like trademarks, where a company is legally obligated to take down infringing content or risk losing their trademark. So, yes, as you say, taking down copywritten material should be up to the copyright-holder, and not the hoster.
Comment by howdareyou at 16/07/2015 at 21:37 UTC
23 upvotes, 1 direct replies
Can we start a crowd fund to get Reddit a fucking attorney? Jesus this is embarrassing.
Comment by RamonaLittle at 17/07/2015 at 11:12 UTC
2 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Well put. Interestingly, I had former CEO yishan tagged as "CEO who's clueless about copyright law." I forget exactly why, but it was from something similarly clueless which he had posted a while back. How the hell can people running a site *based on content* not know about this stuff? Or (as Scary_The_Clown wrote) at least run it past an attorney before posting it, especially since spez had time to write his post in advance? This whole site is like a lesson in "how not to run a business."
Comment by [deleted] at 16/07/2015 at 22:31 UTC*
3 upvotes, 1 direct replies
[deleted]
Comment by [deleted] at 16/07/2015 at 23:15 UTC
3 upvotes, 2 direct replies
[deleted]
Comment by [deleted] at 16/07/2015 at 23:44 UTC
2 upvotes, 1 direct replies
[deleted]
Comment by Negranon at 16/07/2015 at 22:48 UTC
2 upvotes, 1 direct replies
Why the fuck would you warn them about this?
Comment by cosmictap at 17/07/2015 at 21:22 UTC
0 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Copyright infringement is handled via DMCA. If someone has a complaint the DMCA laws outline specific steps to take to remedy that and the person accused has a chance to respond in a clearly defined way.
Even though DMCA is a mess, I agree with you mostly. Better to try to balance the rights of the poster with the posted, seriously. At least then the average person has a chance against large companies that have lawyers sending threatening letters every day.
I do think the image / Imgur issue could have been better mitigated by more responsible users - that is, crediting creators and thereby helping to reduce the problem of orphan works[1].
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_works
Comment by Phirazo at 16/07/2015 at 22:43 UTC
-2 upvotes, 2 direct replies
The DMCA is intended to protect service providers (reddit) because they do not police for copyrighted content. By moderating such content without legal notice (DMCA) you lose those protections.
That is **not** how the safe harbor works. It merely requires that an online service provider a) not directly benefit from copyright infringement b) not be aware of infringing material and c) expeditiously remove infringing material. It doesn't require the ridiculous "all or nothing" approach you are suggesting here.