3 upvotes, 2 direct replies (showing 2)
View submission: Let's talk content. AMA.
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 RamonaLittle at 17/07/2015 at 15:58 UTC*
2 upvotes, 0 direct replies
And to make things even more fun . . . sometimes a company posts things via a third party, to try and make stuff look like a "leak" or a "bootleg" so that the fans get more excited about it. So even if something literally says it was posted without permission of the copyright owner, that could be a lie.
This came back to bite the company in the ass, when Viacom (or one of the companies that sued YouTube in that lawsuit, I forget which) found out that some of the "infringing" clips they were suing over had actually been authorized as promotional material. Thereby supporting YouTube's defense that they had no way of knowing which videos were infringing, since even the *owner* didn't know. Ooop!
Comment by caitlinreid at 17/07/2015 at 05:06 UTC
2 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Great point.